Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 January 3

< January 2	January 4 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was DELETE. Shirahadasha (talk) 03:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kristie_smeltzer

Does not meet WP:BIO. Author removed prod tag with no explanation. Google search reveals some collegiate-level awards and minor mentions, but nothing coming close to meeting Wiki author notability guidelines Tanthalas39 (talk) 05:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no assertion of notability per WP:N and no references for verification per WP:V. Mh29255 (talk) 01:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to fail WP:BIO.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 02:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete no evidence of extensive coverage by reliable secondary sources, consistency with Geogre's Law is noted). Pete.Hurd (talk) 02:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. --Crusio (talk) 14:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Shirahadasha (talk) 03:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arkasandriel Series

A series of fiction books for which no notability is demonstrated. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable book series. Two Google results for Arksandriel and four for "Alexander Verman". ... discospinster _talk 00:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Grump: It is not a fictional series. Its reality can be verified. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That said, I'm finding no way of verifying its notability any more than discospinster did. Does not meet the requirements of WP:BK = delete. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. I can barely find evidence that this series even exists. Clearly non-notable. Doctorfluffy (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not verifiable or notable, author's name get negligible ghits.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 02:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crap! The article is totally unencyclopedic. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete G1 by User:Djsasso, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spamitising

A recently (i.e., yesterday) made-up word with little present currency. The author of the page removed a proposed for deletion tag, so I decided to send it here. ArglebargleIV (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons I prod'ed the article: Wikipedia is not for things made up one day, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought -- pb30<talk> 23:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Completely unworthy of an article. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Mud4t (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: this article is not only patent nonsense per WP:SD#G1, I believe it qualifies as outright WP:vandalism worthy of immediate deletion per WP:SD#G3 as the page's creator has also resorted to obscenities on the article's talk page. Hence, I have tagged the main article as such. Mh29255 (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spebi 10:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alarm clock prank

Wikipedia is not a howto guide or a publisher of original thought -- pb30<talk> 23:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Mud4t (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP, Wikipedia is not for stuff made up in school one day TonyBallioni (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR and WP:MADEUP. Mh29255 (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete per above. Tavix (talk) 02:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a how to guide, nor is it to be used for stuff made up in school one day. --Hdt83 ^Chat 05:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I Think the user should also be blocked from editing for awhile. IF you look at his talk page this the 4th page he has had deleted in 3 days. Ridernyc (talk) 07:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Load of Old Cobblers. Xdenizen (talk) 09:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet submarine K-329

The contents of this article mainly deals with information on other submarines that are often incorrectly referred to as K-329. It is not necessary to create an entire article dedicated to the non-existent submarine. This article also contains much original research, and is written in a very informal manner. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 23:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wow, I tried reading through that article and I got extremely confused. We don't need an article for a non-existing submarine. Tavix (talk) 23:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the article have not improved since February Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: article is clearly original research and highly garbled. Mh29255 (talk) 01:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possibly, probably, perhaps... reading this is like eavesdropping on a conversation between two boring people. Mandsford (talk) 00:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to exist. —Encephalon 04:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Take another look. Updated, with sources. Looks approximately like a Wikipedia article now. Help had been requested with reading Russian sources and was a long time coming. I like to saw logs! (talk) 07:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Great article about a submarine that never existed! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Took another look, no change in vote. It's an article about a submarine that existed, but that was never launched. Maybe there's a good article about an entire fleet of these that were sunk by budget cuts, but the Belgogrod didn't leave port. Mandsford (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I struggle to see a good reason to keep this. Of the four sources purported to be about this submarine, 2 are anonymous posts in internet forums, and therefore completely inadmissible as references for an encyclopedia article. The remaining two are in Russian, and I am unable to ascertain what they claim about the sub. Whatever it is, the K-329 is certainly not the focus of either article; indeed "329" does not appear even once in one of them [1]. As this machine, even if it ever existed, appears to be so poorly documented, I doubt very much that we can at present write a credible encyclopedia article on it. —Encephalon 02:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Why take the need to create a article for a non-exsisting sub, after the deletion, however, could add info on the confused sub pages that the sub was not to be confused with K-329.--Quek157 (talk) 04:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is very little decent information available about this submarine, and certainly (as has been said before), not enough to write a decent encyclopedic article upon. Kavanagh21 (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Shirahadasha (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any relevant information to the article on Oscar-II class submarine and delete. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete There are FA-standard articles on ships which were laid down but never finished (for example, USS Kentucky (BB-66)) so there's no reason to delete this article because the sub was never completed. However, the lack of reliable sources is a serious concern and the sub's numbering isn't consistent with the other Oscar class submarines (none of them have hull numbers in the 300-range) so I suspect that deletion would be warranted on the grounds that this might be a hoax or an article created in error. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The USS Kentucky was notable for "being the last authorized Iowa-class battleship, and for being the only ship of the class considered for a guided missile rebuild," while the submarine the article is about is just supposedly one of many that were discarded (not notable in any other way). Stephenchou0722 (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Shirahadasha (talk) 04:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angus Tók Hnífinn

Non-notable album by non-notable band who have already been deleted - ie fails WP:N and in particular Wikipedia:Notability (music). Springnuts (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because this is a demo album released by the same band, with no claim of meeting WP:MUSIC in article:

Delete I have difficulty believing in the notability of an album by a band whose article was deleted due to an expired prod. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 23:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ditto on the second album up for deletion. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Album is not yet released, and no claim of meeting WP:Notability or WP:MUSIC in article.--Fabrictramp (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tried adding a speedy template, before I noticed it already had been declined. However, I think this should have been speedied. ( I notice there is a lot of discussing about that on the speedy-talkpage. Given an album is less than a band, it should be more obvious it could be speedied than a band, and a band who is unable to defend an article will never be able to defend an article about one of it's albums. Leave the creator with the job of asking for undeletion of the various album-articles if they ever manage to show notability for the band itself then.) Greswik (talk) 10:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC) Addendum: see undeletion request at [2], commons about the album cover: uploader claims to be a part of the band. The band article was made by someone with the same username here. Ie: this is also spam, and COI. Greswik (talk) 10:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete both. If the band's not notable, then the album articles don't have a snowball's chance in hell. On top of that, this album hasn't even been released yet, and the other is a demo tape.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 02:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Macorex

Website launched within the past year, with no claim in article of meeting WP:Notability. Of the 91 non-wiki ghits, only a couple refer to this site (basically all the ones listed in the article), and none of those show any notability. Contested prod. Fabrictramp (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also WP:COI issues.--Fabrictramp (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable company, probable COI violation, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources found to prove notability, could almost speedy delete under A7 -- pb30<talk> 02:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Shirahadasha (talk) 04:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marx-O-Larry's

There is no assertion in the article that this company meets WP:CORP, other than perhaps a weasel ad. A search outside of Wikipedia yields very little results, virtually all of which are Yellow Pages listings. A ecis^Brievenbus 22:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. A ecis^Brievenbus 22:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]
delete - no claim of notability and nothing to verify with. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete Non notable. Google search suggests this is a chain of 3 (!) Dutch ice-cream outlets who do not even have a webpage. Arnoutf (talk) 10:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Marx-O-Larry's is a great ice cream parlor! It might not have a lot of stores or a website, but is has great ice cream. It is the best quality of ice cream in the region of IJmond in the Netherlands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkvnkmaeaaa (talk • contribs) 11:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:ILIKEIT. Simply being good or delicious is not good enough, a company needs to be notable enough for Wikipedia. Aecis^Brievenbus 18:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Marx-O-Larry's is very notbale, but to the people of the region of IJmond. It is their most notable ice cream parlor they have. It might not be a huge chain like Dairy Queen, but they are a local chain. This is what makes their ice cream so great:That it is uniek. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkvnkmaeaaa (talk • contribs)
    - I know several very, very good homemade ice-cream outlets in Utrecht (among them the 2007 world champion). These are obviously not notable enough, neither is Marx-O-Larry's. Enjoy the ice-cream but it should not be on wiki. Arnoutf (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*keep It wouldn't hurt anyone having marx-o-lary's on the web!!! So why take it off? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkvnkmaeaaa (talk • contribs) 19:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC) Stricken as second vote by same editor; the creator of the nominated article. Arnoutf (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. DS (talk) 04:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Communication Intonation Indicating Colour Scheme

Delete zero GHITS for the phrase. Appears to be WP:MADEUP WP:OR Mayalld (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Delete per WP:MADEUP or even WP:HOAX.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless solid references can be found. I have also tagged the article as a possible hoax. Dhaluza (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Neither side's arguments are inherently weak enough to discount the numbers. Argyriou (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of buzzwords

I think we should workshop the idea of leveraging our partnerships source-wise and proactively enact a paradigm shift of this article to from the long tail of Wikipedia going forward to rightshoring at Wiktionary. While it has truthiness it is not mission critical encyclopaedia-wise, but would be a value-added outsource to Wiktionary. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having eyeballed it on the clickthrough, I'd have to say that dewebifying might be what we should action.--Doc^g 22:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Buzzkill with extreme prejudice - no objective criteria are possible as to what constitutes a buzzword (and I note that the buzzword article is itself under scrutiny for a variety of issues). Otto4711 (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Beekeep - Objective criteria are pretty clear: V, RS, A. The list, with its properties and attributes of informing the reader with examples in a neutral manner, is not inherently unencyclopedic, does not fail #DIR unless one argues with sophistry, and does not fail #INFO in any way, so it must be shown convincingly that it is not encyclopedic. Can always be merged with parent, but that's an editorial decision outside the scope of this discussion. Note about the quality of the buzzword article is irrelevant; regardless, it would be subjective to have that article list a handful of examples, exclude the rest, and claim to be informative in any substantial way. Note about this being suitable for Wiktionary is irrelevant; Wiktionary, while a endearing sister project, is essentially unrelated in the way me and my bros are unrelated, as content can exist both here and at Wiktionary. –Pomte 03:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the sourcing (mostly to other websites) it's still one person's selection, apparently of commonly heard phrases during the years 2004-2008, with no definitions and no parameters. This page is more of a dust magnet for people to add the latest catchphrase, but today's "buzzword" is tomorrow's cliche. Encyclopedic articles can be written about, for lack of a better title, buzzwords from a particular year, based on the numerous magazine and newspaper articles that come out every year of words that are "in" and "out". A lot of the ones on here would probably be considered out of date rather than buzzwords. This one needs to be downsized (1998) or voted off the island (2003) or given the pink slip (1958). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandsford (talk • contribs) 03:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One person's selection? This seems more to have been a collaboration by many editors. Even if this looks like a dust magnet, it is maintained; see Talk:List of buzzwords/Removed content for all the unsourced words excluded from the list. So what if the words go out of date? It's not List of buzzwords in current usage, it's a general list. The historical variations, by your analysis, give this list more value. If you would like to, based on this list, write articles about buzzwords from particular years, go ahead. But those lists not existing yet does not warrant deleting this one, as this is simply an amalgamation of all of them, with parameters implied by policy. Definitions can always be filled in based on the sources. –Pomte 04:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Groan - per nom. :) The Transhumanist 06:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to make an observation with respect to Wiktionary... a significant source of new material for Wiktionary are lists from Wikipedia. The longer the list is allowed to grow on Wikipedia the more significant the contribution is. Lists transferred to Wiktionary don't usually grow much. Once a list is removed from Wikipedia, it doesn't grow here either. Creativity is being wasted and suppressed. It's a shame. These word lists are useful, and Wikipedia attracts the most traffic/talent, so it would be beneficial to both Wiktionary and Wikipedia if Wikipedia allowed development of these lists without having to defend them versus deletion every five minutes. The Transhumanist 06:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the emphasis of AfDs on debating deletion should change to suggesting and finding solutions. The Transhumanist 06:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please restrict discussion to whether this article belongs here. It may certainly be useful or underdeveloped at Wiktionary, but it should be kept because it's not unencyclopedic, not those other reasons. –Pomte 06:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Pomte. It's a good start. Adding the time period in which each buzzword was in fact a buzzword is a good idea. Perhaps rename the page to List of buzzwords and clichés, and add a lead section that explains the difference between the two. List the terms by year, and let the reader decide which are still buzzwords and which are clichés. The Transhumanist 06:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, do a big bunch of original research, and then do some more original research, and then encourage the reader to do more original research on top of all the original research that's already been done. Great plan. Otto4711 (talk) 06:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, in other words, since the line between the two is blurred, leave it blurred. Any reliable source will do to substantiate that a buzzword was at one time a buzzword. As long as we know it is one of the two (buzzword or cliché), we don't have to know which one it is. :) And the list is only "original research" as long as it is unsourced, which presents a developmental dilemma: such a list is in danger of getting deleted unless it is already sourced, but in order to get the most exposure so that it becomes sourced it needs to be posted. As far as I can tell, ninety-five percent of Wikipedia is unsourced. Luckily, articles can't be deleted fast enough to make a big dent. :-) Eventually, someone will come along and source it -- give that person, whoever Fate decides it will be, a chance. The Transhumanist 08:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Same reasons as raised by Pomte. Additionally, there is an obvious interest in having a pretty well sourced and well maintained list of buzzwords available on Wikipedia for serious reference and for fun. Just check out the frequent addition of unsourced words and phrases to the main buzzword article (which have lessened since this list was created). Yes, that doesn't mean the list should arbitrarily be kept. But at the same time, it does show quite a few users and web visitors think the list is relevant and useful. The context and age concerns are valid, but those aspects can be added to this page. Deletion seems excessive and unwarranted. And sarcastic insinuations about original research are not constructive. Let's try to keep this discussion civil. --Careax (talk) 07:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, let's keep the discussion civil, by refraining from making veiled accusations of incivility where no incivility exists in an attempt to discredit the comments of others. WP:USEFUL is not a compelling argument for retaining any article. Neither is 'people add junk to the main article so we need someplace to dump it,' also known as better here than there. If material is being inappropriately added to the main article, deal with it in the context of the main article. Don't create or maintain garbage dump articles to keep the main articles "pure." Otto4711 (talk) 07:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, perfectly acceptable list that serves as a tool to navigate the wiki. We have Category:Buzzwords as well and lists and categories are complementary, which in this particular case is shown by the addition of references and non-alphabetical sorting in the list. --Reinoutr (talk) 07:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The existence of a category (WP:WAX) has no bearing on whether this article should remain. Otto4711 (talk) 07:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes it does, just like categories, lists can be very useful as a way of organizing and navigating the wiki. BTW, please don't toss around acronyms like that without giving any real argument, I can make any argument for keeping this article I want, as long as I give a decent explanation (which I did). You'll love this one: WP:DOSPAGWYA. --Reinoutr (talk) 11:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appropriate navigational list. Lists are one way of organizing WP content for users. A good way--Categories seem to me only only an internal supplement.DGG (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these don't have entries, and probably never will because Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. That's why I proposed moving it to Wiktionary, like we have with other jargon lists. Guy (Help!) 16:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not underestimate the ingenuity of wpedians in writing adequate articles about the others. anyway, there is no requirement for a list to include only blue-linked articles. DGG (talk) 23:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It can be transwikied and still remain here. The Transhumanist 22:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am neutral on this AfD, but I get the feeling that if this list was exactly the same without the sources, there would likely be a fairly strong consensus to delete. Thoughts?--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 03:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fairly strong? If it were unsourced it would be Speedy Deleted! Jedibob5 (talk) 23:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Buzzwords are just to subjective (and large) a category for this list to ever be useful. 06:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mostlyharmless (talk • contribs)
Keep They're sourced to legitimate websites, making them inherently notable, so I see no reason to get rid of this. Could do with a bit of cleanup however. Jedibob5 (talk) 23:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep due to changes and references added since beginning of AfD. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Workforce Strategy Center

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 22:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was merge and redirect to a list of characters for the Onion. Notability independant of the Onion cannot be established, so a merge makes the most sense; as Sh76us noted, as a major character in a notable work, it can certainly stand in a list. David Fuchs^(talk) 18:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don Turnbee

This article asserts no notability through reliable sourcing, and as such just repeats the contents of articles on the onion, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I'm not 100% convinced myself that this character is worthy of a full article, but if we had an article on recurring characters in the Onion, it would make sense to merge to that. Haikupoet (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Haikupoet. Several of the articles about Onion characters have the same message, surely if there was one article for all of them, with redirects, that would be acceptable? --Dyefade (talk) 12:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Onion as a viable search term. Google search reveals nada in terms of independent notability outside the "onion universe". If not redirect, then I say delete. Keeper | 76 21:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per notability. Notability seems to be the hardest of the inclusion criteria to satisfy sadly. Marlith ^T/C 02:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a recurring fictitious character in a major publication, he warrants a page every bit as much as any other fictitious character in any TV show or movie. Sh76us (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, Sh76us, there is a lot of contention as to whether most fictional characters warrant a page or not. The key is referencing that shows that the specific subject matter, in this case Don Turnbee, warrants an article. I've done a google search (albeit not exhaustive), linked above, and couldn't find anything substantive. I recommend reading, if you haven't, the discussions happening revolving around WP:FICT, including the talk page regarding the inclusion criteria for fictional characters, episodes, villains, heroes... And also if you haven't, please read WP:WAX. Cheers, Keeper | 76 15:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Full Spectrum Warrior. Per the GFDL, it's not appropriate to delete pages when a merge has been performed; the history has to remain so that the content is attributable to the original author. Walton^One 19:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zekistan

This article asserts no notability through reliable sourcing WP:RS, and as such is just an in-universe plot repetition that should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we merege the article with Full Spectrum Warrior but shorten down? SG2090 (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish, though it seems like there is little worth transferring. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non notable fiction country. Tavix (talk) 02:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've just merged it to the FSW article, it's fine to delete now EJB341 (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaker-to-Animals

This article asserts no notability through reliable sourcing, and as such this information is just plot repetition and original research, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question Did you suggest or consider redirecting this to the book(s) where this character appeared in? 68.101.22.132 (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & cleanup - Chmeee (same charactor) is a central charactor in 2 of the 4 books and Cameo's in the other 2. I would suggest a serious cleanup and better Cites would go a long way for this article. (aside - where exactly would you suggest a redirect be pointed to?) Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Exit2d. Edward321 (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an apparently significant character. i would like to see the nominator explain why the reason applies to this particular article--the same specific nomination is being used for everything being nominated, so I wonder whether the individual nature of the articles is being considered. DGG (talk) 03:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...Because they are all the same? In-universe plot repetition with no demonstration, and in most cases no hope, of notability? It's the same story, why would I tell a different one? For fun? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete JERRY ^talk _contribs 20:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Random Task (Austin Powers)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just plot repetition of the appearance of this minor Austin Powers character from the first movie, and as such is pure duplication and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 22:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Austin Powers or the specific movie. JJL (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Memorable villain from a blockbuster film franchise. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an non notable character. Marlith ^T/C 02:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, character addressed in Characters in Austin Powers, doesn't merit its own article. PKT (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator, without dissent. Non-admin closure. Serpent's Choice (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eudiometer

I am tagging this article for deletion for several reasons.

-There are four sources mentioned for 4 sentences among several hundred. It would be more work to find sources for these statements than to delete the page and start over methodically.
-There are numerous formatting and spelling errors, which detract from the article.
-Much of the information given is covered in other articles. This blatant overlap must be stopped.

Jokermole (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. No valid rationale for deletion - the fact that an article is in need of improvement is not a reason for deleting it. I agree that it could do with more sources than simple dictionary definitions, but this is an historically important piece of apparatus that should have an article. Tevildo (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Tevildo above. None of the reasons given are part of deletion policy. If it needs some work that's an editorial issue, not a deletion issue.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is no reason for deletion listed. We should fix problems, not remove articles that have them. matt91486 (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. The only thing I've got to add to the comments above is the word "speedy". Phil Bridger (talk) 11:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per rationale above. Also, please note that User:Jokermole's first contribution (and only besides his/her own user/talkpages) is this AfD request. May or may not be relevant, but it smells like xe's been wearing shoes too long on a hot day. Keeper | 76 21:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok guys. I understand your comments, and therefore believe that Keep is the best option. I am actually not a new user, but I have done my edits mostly anonymously from another ip. This account is NOT a sock puppet. Jokermole (talk) 04:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you strike out the nomination and note that it's withdrawn it should get closed reasonably quickly.--Cube lurker (talk) 04:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Article has been moved to a non-PEACOCK title. I think the unverified statement tag is appropriate, as there are some unverified claims which shouldn't be left unverified. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 22:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of recordings with a prominent flanging effect

Predominantly unsourced WP:Original research, and WP:LISTCRUFT. Oli Filth^(talk) 21:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article doesn't have an AfD tag on it. The Transhumanist 22:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Thanks for spotting! Oli Filth^(talk) 22:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or merge into flanging - I found the list very interesting - this is the very type of feature that puts Wikipedia above all other encyclopedias. It's organic. The list could be very useful for someone studying flanging effects in music, and therefore is not listcruft. And it appears some work has been done on gathering references. Also, the songs themselves are a source for verifiability. Anyone can check a song for flanging, and songs are easily accessible in most cases. It's analogous to quoting a movie, and citing the movie as the source for the quote. This list should be kept, or added to the article flanging as "Examples of recordings with a prominent flanging effect". Is there any chance of getting permission from the publishers to present sound clips from these songs? That would really make the list useful. The Transhumanist 22:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortuantely, WP:INTERESTING is not a reason for keeping an article.

I see your point on it not being cruft, but due to the haphazard way the list has been compiled, it seems almost trivial (not least because there's no criteria for how notable a song has to be to be included), so I stand by my opinion.

The songs are not a source for verifiability; in many cases it's open to interpretation as to whether a particular effect is flanger, chorus, phaser, echo, or just a trick of microphone placement; see some of the discussions on the article's talk page. Any such inference without a reliable source is pure OR.

As for merging into Flanging, this list was originally part of that article, but was split out after a discussion there; see Talk:Flanging#Recordings with a prominent flanging effect. Incidentally, that conversation gives an example of the "open to interpetation" I refer to, as well as echoing my opinion that it's crufty. Oli Filth^(talk) 22:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning notability, if a song is notable, then it is notable enough to be listed on Wikipedia. Notability requirements are not typically set in specific articles, they are set by WP:N. I interpreted the word "prominent" in the article's title to refer to the acoustics of the effect rather than to the popularity of the sample. That word could easily be removed. The nobability problem is tied into the OR issue, and both are solved by providing sources. Let the article be sourced. The Transhumanist 22:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If suitable sources can be found, I agree that this would imply the songs in question are probably satisfactorily notable. As for the use of "prominent"; on the one hand its use leads to subjectivity. On the other hand, without such a criterion, then there's a million songs out there that will have some form of flanging added to some extent during mastering. Oli Filth^(talk) 22:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as original deprodder despite the concerns I raised on the talkpage, and my general dislike of lists. This is a sourced (partially, but the remainder could be sourced by a dedicated editor with a copy of The Rough Guide to Music), interesting and useful list. (Before anyone starts quoting ATA at me, can I remind them that that's a personal essay not a policy.) As TTH says, this kind of list is one of the reasons Wikipedia shines while the wannabes fall by the wayside; something that will never be included in Britannica or even Knol, but is potentially very valuable to someone researching the subject. I'm baffled by the use of WP:LISTCRUFT as a nomination reason - quite aside from the fact that LC is, again, a personal essay, this is the type of list specifically not considered as "listcruft" in that essay; a parent article exists, and the list would be disproportionately long as part of the parent article. — iridescent 22:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find the list encyclopaedic for the reasons pointed out by The Transhumanist. Although there's likely a component of original research (which is why I tagged the article as such), with only a couple hours of research, I was able to cite a dozen of the entries, leading me to believe that many more of the entries could easily be cited as well; I just haven't had the time to continue work on the list. dissolve^talk 22:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding your comment on finding sources, fair enough. But is anyone likely to do this? The article has been tagged as OR for months, and only 12 out of 80 or so have had sources found (no disrespect intended to the effort you put in, though!). I guess we could remove all the unsourced items, but that hardly leads a very useful, encyclopaedic, or comprehensive list. Oli Filth^(talk) 22:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The sources seem to have been tracked down in November, just over a month ago. So it seems very likely that more sources could be forthcoming. Maybe the editor who provided those sources would be willing to provide some more. :) Also, notices could be placed on the relevant noticeboards to recruit help to source this article. There are many alternatives to deletion that are no more cumbersome than participating in this discussion. (hint hint wink wink concerning the approach taken). The Transhumanist 22:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - TTH is right though - for something like this, the songs are the source. (Try removing the material directly sourced from the subject of the article here, for example — although it might provide an interesting bit of wikidrama.) — iridescent 23:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not sure I understand the Harry Potter analogy! However, the songs cannot be the source if one cannot discern whether the effect is one of several that sound similar (as I mentioned above), which may be the case even for quite strong-sounding use of one of these effects. A (somewhat weak) analogy would be a "list of songs recorded with a Fender Telecaster". Sure, it has a fairly recognisable sound, and I bet we could start such a list, and say "the songs themselevs are the sources". But there's a dozen ways of replicating that sound; without authoritative sources, it would be OR. Oli Filth^(talk) 23:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I posted my last version of the list from the few days I worked on it in November 2007. It should address some of the concerns with organization of the list into a timeline and additional references. Although more references are needed, I think it illustrates that much of the list is citable with published secondary sources. Perusing the sources will also indicate the notability of the subject matter. dissolve ^talk 23:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per The Transhumanist. This is actually a well put-together list. Tavix (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But 75% unsourced... Oli Filth^(talk) 00:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is no possible objective criterion as to whether a flanging effect is "prominent" or not. That in itself would mandate the relocation of this article to List of articles with a flanging effect. However, even with that move the list is still a directory of loosely-associated topics. The inclusion of a particular instrument, sound or sound effect in a song does not create any sort of encyclopedic relationship between the songs that include the effect in question. We have deleted any number of similar lists of songs that include particular instruments or sounds. Otto4711 (talk) 01:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I was the user who "created" this article by detaching it from the article Flanging. It had become too long for the main article and contained some non-notable and unverified examples. Generally, lists on their own are not good Wikipedia writing style, so it would not be a great loss for this article to be deleted. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename based on Transhumanist arguments and User:Dissolve's citations. Should be renamed to List of recordings with a flanging effect. The word prominent is a weasel word in this instance (is 15% of the recording "flanged", or 50%? What makes it prominent? Is there a threshold?) A vague adjective doesn't belong in the title of an article, IMO. Keeper | 76 22:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum. I think I meant WP:PEACOCK there, not WP:WEASEL. In fact, I'm sure I meant peacock. Keeper | 76 22:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There were already a dozen cites in this article when it was nominated for AfD ( there's 26 right at the moment ). I really have to question "unreferenced" as a reason for deletion. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because each of the items in the list is completely independent of the others (hence Otto4711's comment above), and so each needs its own reference. I do appreciate that there are now many more cited items, but what do we do with the 55 or so that are still uncited? Oli Filth^(talk) 16:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wait. I've always heard that "patience is a virtue". The Transhumanist 01:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Indeed. But being a cold-hearted editor, I've also heard "Do not leave unsourced information in articles for too long" (WP:V)! If this AfD closes as a keep, I would put money on the majority of the remaining items never being sourced by anyone. Oli Filth^(talk) 01:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Luckily, "There is no deadline.". dissolve ^talk 03:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oli, you've edited a completely unsourced article called List of chief executive officers 33 times, and yet you haven't nominated that list for deletion. There are articles you've edited even more than that which are also predominantly unsourced. It appears you are applying WP:VER selectively. In your own words you are "cold-hearted", so why are you giving those pages special treatment? Why do those deserve to remain on Wikipedia and this one does not? The Transhumanist 11:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Your observation is correct; however, my only edits to that article have been to remove red-links or non-links. Any items I haven't touched are linked to existing WP articles, each of which (I assume, but haven't checked) describes the individual as a CEO, and I assume would've been deleted if incorrect or non-notable. IMHO, it's overkill to directly source list articles which simply collate links to other WP articles which confirm membership of the list, e.g. List of musical instruments, List of proteins. This list, however, is different, in that even if each of the items had its own article, they wouldn't all say "This song used a flanger...". Oli Filth^(talk) 13:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Good answer. I agree that the items in the list should be sourced within a reasonable time. The Transhumanist 12:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - articles similar to this one that have been deleted include but are not limited to: List of musical releases featuring a vocoder; List of songs featuring a theremin; List of sampled songs. There is no difference between those lists of songs featuring a particular type of instrument or sound and this one. Otto4711 (talk) 05:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, nomination withdrawn (with no other opinions advocating deletion or merge). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 23:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Lamb

Fails WP:N, no third party sources, do we really need an article about every football coach at every university? RichardΩ6 12 21:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The school is a notable enough athletics program (D1-AA) that the head coach articles meet notability. Sources shouldn't be too difficult to find, either. I found this here with no real effort at all. matt91486 (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. Now that a source has been found [I have added it into the article as well] it no longer qualifies for deletion. Sorry, how could I have missed that! ><RichardΩ6 12 22:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

D.V.C

Declined the speedy on this because the article claims notability in its statement that the band had toured in Europe. However, there just aren't many reliable sources out there that I was able to find in a quick hunt to indicate that they're notable, so bringing it here for discussion. My opinion would bedelete unless someone finds more sources. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable band. Funeral 21:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete appears not notable enough for an article, WP:MUSIC would require two albums on a major (one of the big four) or well known independent label.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 03:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Bongwarrior (talk) 00:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Elizabeth Duke

Word-for-word copy of [3]. May not be a copyvio since that's a US federal gov't website, but I'm not sure. Dougie WII (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doug. I am an employee of HRSA creating this page to link it internally from the HRSA wiki page. Can you please let me know what should be done to keep this page from being deleted. Thanks. --Mulysse (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia is not meant to be a free web host for your organization, but since this person must be considered notable and worthy of inclusion I guess you need to show that this document is in the public ___domain as a work of the U.S. government, or rewrite the article in your own words citing verifiable, reliable 3rd party sources. -- Dougie WII (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless it's a copyright violation. Rename without "Dr." Fg2 (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable position; fully agree with above. JJL (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable, and expand with outside sources. The source is not copyvio--well established principle. DGG (talk) 14:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable and not a copyvio. I'll move it if nobody else wants to do the dirty deed. Bearian (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Duke already exists as a redirect to a manufacturor. Bearian (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would suggest moving this article over the existing redirect, then hatlinking this biography article to the manufacturer. Absent compelling reason otherwise, biographies should probably be primary targets. Serpent's Choice (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Shirahadasha (talk) 04:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bionicle society

original research plot summary about a non-notable fictional universe. There is no real world context and all sources are wither primary or from a forum. Ridernyc (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fascinating and comprehensive, but fails WP:RS and WP:FICT. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 21:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable and WP:OR. Malinaccier (talk) 22:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Master of Puppets. Doctorfluffy (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Musacha

Note: See the previous version. This article does not assert the notability of the subject or provide any sources. I doubt that any reliable sources will be found after more than two years of its existence. (In a curious historical footnote, the author of this article was banned 8 days later by an administrator who is himself long gone.) Shalom (Hello • Peace) 20:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete - a The Jerky Boys want to be, with little to no evidence that he even exsists, let alone is notable --T-rex 00:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete due to lack of reliable sources necessary to satisfy WP:N and WP:V. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teen pornography

Page is unreferenced but as a result also completely fails to establish notability of the subject as a notable form of pornography. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whoever wrote the article has failed to convince me that teen pornography is a topic independent of pornography in general. The lack of references really hurts. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 20:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The claim to notability in the article is that teen pornography is a popular subject in pornographic films, magazines, etc. Because it is unreferenced, that claim is original research and therefore the article fails to properly assert notability. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Almost as redundant as an article on "sexual pornography" would be. Tevildo (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Looks pretty well referenced now. I know this is WP:WAX, but do you really think that panda pornography (or any other pornographic sub-genre) is more worthy of a Wikipedia article than teen pornography? I know that 'teen porn' is a vague and subjectively defined sub-genre of porn (not all of the performers are teens - and some pornography featuring teenagers doesn't live up to the stereotypes that so-called 'teen' pornography portrays), and that this has the strong potential to be a magnet for original research, but it does have seven different sources.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 01:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Eight. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 01:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The references provided in this article indicate sufficient coverage of this subject in third-party reliable sources as to establish a presumption of its notability per the general notability guideline. John254 07:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It would seem that at this point the article has established references that satisfy WP:V which assert significant independent coverage. SorryGuy Talk 08:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There could be an article on this topic, if there were any reliable sources writing about it. But there aren't. As it is currently, the article appears to be mostly a list of titles of porn magazines. The sources in the article mention the topic only tangentially, mostly to indicate either that the models are older and pretending to be teens, or that they are children and the material is illegal. Both of those topics are covered in child pornography and pornography; there is no separate topic of "teen pornography", it's just a term used to sell magazines or web subscriptions. The topic does not satisfy WP:N or WP:V; the article should be deleted. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This looks like a serious article with reliable sources. --JaapBoBo (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Did you look at the sources themselves to determine if they're reliable an on-topic? For example, in the following paragraph, what information in the footnote supports the content of this text from the article?

The reissue of Larry Flynts' Barely Legal magazine in 1993 spawned copycat magazines with titles such as Hawk, Tight, and Barely 18. Barely Legal itself has diversified into a popular video series of the same name (which ranked #20 in Adult Video News' Top 40 Rentals on 1999-11-22), alongside titles such as Virgin Stories, Cherries, Rookie Cookies, Cherry Poppers, Young and Anal, Cheerleader Confessions, and Young, Dumb and Full of Cum. * [footnote here]

* [reference citation in footnote:] Karlyn, Kathleen Rowe (Fall 2004). ""Too Close for Comfort": American Beauty and the Incest Motif". Cinema Journal. 44 (1). University of Texas Press: 69–93.</ref>

Does the study in the footnote mention Young, Dumb and Full of Cum? I decided to check it out. Not only does the reference not mention that magazine, it also doesn't mention Young and Anal. It turns out, the study is an analysis of the film "American Beauty" and the way in which the film shows the "structure of father-daughter incest, working through displacement, has provided a narrative that links a series of recent cultural developments: the sexualization of ever-younger girls, cinema's erasure of mothers and of career women as sympathetic figures, and efforts to remasculinize the middle-aged white male." Any connection between that study and the topic of this article would be WP:OR because the study does not discuss "teen pornography". Now that I've done the work of confirming that the source is mis-quoted, I'll remove it from the article. If anyone finds something in that source that I missed, that specifically addresses teen pornography, they are welcome to re-add the footnote. But if so, please provide an exact quote on the talk page so it can be verified. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In further reviewing the three sources currently in this article (that as noted above do not directly address the topic of "teen pornography" but discuss it mostly in relation to child pornography), the sources show two different types of pornography that use the word "teen". One type is simply ordinary pornography, with adult models using dress and make-up to portray young teens. As a sub-genre, along with hundreds of other subgenres, that can easily be covered in the main pornography article. The other type uses underage models who are fraudulently documented as adults and described as "teens". That is actually child pornography; its practice of should be covered in that article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

McDonald's urban legends

AfDs for this article:

This article was previously nominated for deletion in November 2006, and was kept as "no consensus" despite a slight majority in favor of deletion. Nine of the ten references in the article do not refer at all to the rumors themselves, but rather to rebuttals against those rumors. The one source of a rumor is a Snopes article which does not establish notability. Most of the rumors are unverified, which is why they're just silly internet rumors in the first place. Wikipedia should not give undue weight to such silliness. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 20:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

McDonald's was forced to respond to several of those rumours; a number were featured in reputable newspapers worldwide. I don't think it gets much better than that in terms of veracity or notability. Of course there is no original source for an urban myth; that is the whole point of requiring secondary sources. Since when was not citing a primary source considered a good reason for deletion? Johnleemk | Talk 20:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My question is, does the McDonalds response to the rumours acknowledge the rumours notability to a sufficient extent? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Judgesurreal777, I would think so. And I would think that a rebuttal of a rumor would sufficiently estblish the rumor's existance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quasirandom (talk • contribs) 22:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - existence does not equal notability. Otto4711 (talk) 01:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Urban legends are only really citeable in two kinds of source: works by folklorists and rebuttals to rumors. Remove any uncited rumors, and leave the cited ones. --Phirazo 03:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Rebuttals of rumours are perfectly acceptable primary evidence that the rumours existed and were notable (so notable that they needed rebuttal: I can't think of better evidence for the notability of rumours). To establish secondary-source notability, though, it would be nice to have citations of something like Jan Harold Brunvand's Encyclopedia of Urban Legends (Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO, 2001). Anybody have access to a copy? Things put into hamburgers (or milkshakes, or industrially produced apple pies) are a significant part of modern folklore - and should be covered as such, not as part of the MacDonalds article. If a merge were in order, it ought to be to an article on urban legends. --Paularblaster (talk) 14:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per Paularblaster, a rebuttal is a perfectly good secondary source for a rumour; this article is well referenced (in fact, rather better referenced than McDonald's legal cases, for example); it is only one of at least 50 McDonald's-related articles on Wikipedia, so the "undue weight" argument does not apply. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree with the above, rebuttals in public constitute both proof of the rumors' existence, and that it provoked corporate responses in the media shows notability. ThuranX (talk) 05:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concordia class fleet carrier

Short article about a class of fictional spacecraft. There are no secondary sources to establish real-world notability, as required by Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). The article consists solely of a list of specifications and a list of fictional vehicles in the class. This is the type of content one expects to find in a game guide, which Wikipedia is not. Pagra shtak 20:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pagra shtak 20:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:GAMECRUFT User:Krator (t c) 01:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No notability outside of the game universe. Marasmusine (talk) 09:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Shirahadasha (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Rasmus Højengaard

Delete or Possible Merge to the Hitman (series). While he's the director of a notable video game series, I didn't even learn who he was until I did actual research. Basically, no notability. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 18:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of WP:IDONTKNOWIT, but the fact remains that I only discovered who this individual was when I found interviews of his that weren't even about him, and if notability is asserted only by mere association with one notable element, then I know plenty of deleted articles that shouldn't have been deleted, probably 99% of the ones that weren't blatant crap or lies. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 03:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KeepWell isn't that usually the case with anything? Either you know it or you will get to know it by doing research? ♣ 90.184.154.200 (talk · contribs) 21:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC) — 90.184.154.200 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I didn't have to google, and I never heard of him before either. I did go to this site called Wikipedia, however, and read the article and all the citations that were actually about him and not just his games ;) Pharmboy (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can go one the Internet and find tons of sources about someone. That doesn't make him notable. And most, if not all, of the sources aren't even about him. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 16:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But as I stated, the articles ARE about him, interviews with him. WP:V says the article must be verifiable, not verified. Lack of citations is a reason to improve, not delete. In this case, the references are several, in place and valid. Pharmboy (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To me, that merits a merge, not an article. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 17:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Nomination is a poor argument. The article is referenced, but to primary sources and interviews, which are generally not by themselves sufficient to show notability. On the other hand he does have a strong-ish CV. I'd like to see better sources, but I couldn't find any in Google News Archive. --Dhartung | Talk 20:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's my point. I'll admit, I worded my argument poorly, but the fact remains that this person is not notable. I don't know anything about Joe Glazer, but when research is done (outside of Wikipedia, mind you) I learn that he is a folksinger and historian of folksongs who devoted his life to labor unions. I found this info through Google, and I found substantially less information about Rasmus doing a similar search. I know Google hits mean shit, but come on. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 03:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did similar research and found out that Rasmus Højengaard designed an online investment platform to help further entrepreneurship in development countries, by merging game philosophy with micro financing. The platform is called www.myc4.com and has a very original take on "charity". That's notable I believe? Ussphilips (talk) 07:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nope. The subject itself fails WP:N. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 07:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oh well - I added it to the article anyways. Thought it was interesting. Ussphilips (talk) 07:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hitman Blood Money is an exceptionally good game and I believe that the person who was behind it deserves a worthy mention. Definately a keep. (this wasn't supposed to be a 2nd vote). 90.184.154.200 (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.154.200 (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC) — 90.184.154.200 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Popularity isn't notability. I'm sure the inventor of pork skins feels the same way, but just because his product is popular doesn't mean he can have his own article. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 08:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I feel I have to comment on that one. On that note you say that a movie director is not worth an article either or? What differentiates good games, films and music from pork skins, is the artistic element of the product, yes? Ussphilips (talk) 08:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It would be a different story if there was sufficient press coverage over the subject and if the subject had done multiple sucessful games outside of the series or something to that effect. There is press coverage and reliable secondary sources for movie directors. And artistic element has nothing to do with notability. I can find artistic value in pile of dog crap; that doesn't mean an article is gonna be made on it. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 16:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I can find several articles on musicians for example that are here but on whom you can basically only find info, if you go to their instrument related web pages. Studio drummers to mention an example. What makes a semi famous rock drummer notable? Not much in my oppinion...90.184.154.200 (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The fact that other crap exists doesn't mean crap. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 18:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        True, but that doesn't render my argument irrelevant. It just turns your's very subjective.90.184.154.200 (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Technically, it does, as far as saying other articles exist goes. These other articles can get deleted just like any other article. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 18:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes but that's where I think you and I fundamentally disagree (which could make me a very bad boy within the world of WP, I admit), but I don't think that the content of WP should be entirely decided by technicalities and systematic boundries.90.184.154.200 (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        But anyways(!) - it's not like it matters to me that much. I just found an article that I found interesting that I noticed was up for deletion and I felt a little annoyed by it :-). Do what you gotta do men, my bag or arguments is empty.90.184.154.200 (talk) 18:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes but if you can also find commercial value in a pile of crap you definitely got yourself an article ;-). 90.184.154.200 (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reason for submitting it was the same as the above argument. Ussphilips (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC) — Ussphillips (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. No notability is shown. Being a director of one notable video game isn't enough for an article. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that IP 90.184.154.200 has voted twice. I don't know if this is just an misunderstanding of AfDs or if this was an attempt to create more keep votes. If it's the latter, I feel his votes should be dismissed. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 02:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok. It's been cleared up. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 08:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it's notable enough to keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.122.3.244 (talk) 08:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC) — 91.122.3.244 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep First of all I dont think it's quantity that makes something notable. Second I think that a person who directs a game or a movie puts some of his or her "soul" into that product. That by definition makes the person behind it interesting. Pepsyk (talk) 08:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC) — Pepsyk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Interesting how a new user such as yourself took interest in an AfD for his or her first 2 edits... very interesting..... ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 16:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Funny how you seem to just want to find a way to nullify the other comments. Cheer up dude :-). I think your main arguments seem to derive from the importance of quantity, which to me seems a little askew. But that might just be me?90.184.154.200 (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - All I'm doing is following my intuition and supporting that decision; the fact remains that this user, who is supposedly "new," voted in an AfD for their first edit. I didn't even know what an AfD was when I began to edit. Perhaps you should better support your argument instead and preventing me from nullifying comments. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 18:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - But my dear friend, I am. I feel towards this article as I feel towards seeing a movie that I like, and when it's over I wanna know who made it, because I didn't expect the movie to be as good as it was. That's how I felt towards the game when I played it. I wanted to know who was behind it, because I felt it had a different "vibe" than the previous games. And BEHOLD - it was another Game Director! And BEHOLD I read it here - on WP(!), and then saw at the same time that you wanted to delete the article, and I decided to join the debate...90.184.154.200 (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh and if it will make people feel better, I'd be happy to make an account to give my arguments some extra "punch". All in good spirit :-).90.184.154.200 (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Textbook example of WP:ILIKEIT like I stated below. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 18:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, my arguments might not be within the boundries of a certified WP argument, but it's nonetheless how I feel towards it. And it's the quality and originality of the content (not that I like it) that makes me wanna go "behind the scenes" and pursue the inclusion of the article.90.184.154.200 (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm seeing a lot of "I thinks" and WP:ILIKEIT instead of genuine arguments. None of the "Keep" votes have validly supported their viewpoint. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 16:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At this time, there are 8 votes and 14 comments by the ~~article~~ AFD creator. Seems a bit out of whack and like a bludgening of the AFD. Pharmboy (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean with "bludgening" Pharmboy?90.184.154.200 (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply From the Urban Dictionary: Bludgen - To beat powerfully with force with an object of great mass. Pharmboy (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Oh, I know what it means thank you - I meant to ask how you used it? What was receiving the beating? The concept of AFD or the actual article? Thanks :-).90.184.154.200 (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just who exactly are you referring to? ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 20:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are the only one with that many comment entries, asking seems kind of pointless and begging for argument, which I will not oblige you with. It isn't necessary (or desirable) to debate every person who offers an opinion here. Pharmboy (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I did so mainly because of the votes that appeared canvassed and by an "editor" who only has 2 edits, both of which are in this AfD. I've seen things like this happen before and I don't want them to happen again when I can help it. I'll admit, I've posted a large amount of comments, but at the same time, these comments were replied to which prompted me to defend my viewpoint. I honestly didn't expect myself to post so many comments. I just wanted to do my best to show how, in my opinion, how some of the "keep" votes were flawed. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 20:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, my first submission to WP and I feel like I've removed the lowest can in a huge can-pyramid in a supermarket. How it's possible to be so rule-bound is beyond me and defies the purpose of WP to some extent (in my oppinion). Remove the sodding article if it's such a big deal. I just believe it deserves to be there for all the reasons that dear Mr. Anonymous, Pharmboy and myself put on the table :-). This is a typical example of what happens to a "free for all" project that starts being governed. It ends up being OVER-governed... A little sad if you ask me. Ussphilips (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You make it seem like the article is being deleted already; nothing is final yet. Like I said, I'm doing what I feel is right in my own opinion, which I feel is partly what Wikipedia is about. It's not like my viewpoint is the best or correct. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 21:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to make it personal in any way, because you are of course entitled to your opinion. But reading through the debate, I sense an almost hostile approach when you argue against people who don't share your opinion, and that takes the fun out of fun and replaces it with poppycock. That said, I can see your points of view and understand them. I just don't think they weigh out the countering arguments. Dude, have a nice day/night wherever you're from and let's venture on with a smile on our small chubby faces!Ussphilips (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I hear you. It does look lik that and I really didn't intend for it to appear that way. Part of it stems from this incident I had a long time ago with a handful of users and it was honestly the most extreme and unnecessary thing I've seen in my entire life and it revolved around sockpuppeting, which now aggravates the crap out of me. It's just a bit of a hotbutton for me, especially when I see "new" users doing what the above user did. I apologize if it seemed like I was biting people's heads off. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 22:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Game director of the critically acclaimed video game Hitman Blood Money" passes my notability bar, is there a written guide to establish this without subjectivity? If the nominator "didn't even learn who he was" until they researched it, it sounds like a case for article improvement. Keep for improvement.--Alf ^melmac 18:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think he meets notability, and the sources are bent towards him. matt91486 (talk) 01:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jehovah's Witnesses. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jw.org

I had originally tagged db-web and nom (who is also the creator of the article) changed it to an AFD but he failed to finish the AFD process. It is about a non-notable website, the information within the article is already covered in the main Jehovah's Witnesses article and no new information is added so it is redundant. It also looks more like advertising for the website than informational at this time as well. Would also include JW.org redirect. Pharmboy (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC) Pharmboy (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am the one who nominated it for AfD, and (for the sake of full-disclosure) also created the article. While I am always open to comments from the community, I thought speedy deletion of the article was hasty considering the size of the org and the distribution of the periodical in question, which is published in more languages than any periodical by a mile. I think its safe to say it doesn't read like spam. I think the biggest strike against it is it newness, since it was relaunched on the first. However, it is a new media presentation for the organization, which is why I thought it might merit a separate article, much like specific books for the organization (and others for that matter) have their own articles. Regardless, here it is in AfD.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 20:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As to size of organization, please read WP:BIG. I think it would maybe qualify as a redirect just as you did Watchtower.org, but as of now, the website (as a standalone website) doesn't meet notability. *New* websites are the defacto definition of what db-web speedy was designed for. I don't begrudge you for pulling the speedy tag, although that is clearly against policy for an article creator to pull a speedy tag. You should have used the {{HANGON}} tag. You should also have FINISHED the AFD process, which the failure of may look like someone trying to work around the system. I am taking you actions in good faith, but you see that they were really contrary to policy. Regardless, the site fails notability. I wouldn't object it was redirected to Jehovah's Witness, which is the only thing that makes the site have any potential notability anyway. Pharmboy (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for inputs and I don't contest any failure of this AfD, but I did want to at least have my actions represented in the light of what transpired. (1) I didn't put a {{holdon}} tag on it because it was already deleted by the time I realized it was being nominated for speedy. I don't think this was a violation of policy to subsequently bring it here, but if it is, fair enough. (2) I did attempt to complete the AfD, but while I was typing up my reason, my browser crashed. By the time I was back up and running, someone had already finished it. That is why I added my comments below his/hers above.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Jehovah's Witnesses. It is nowadays presumed that an organization will have a website, so mere existence of same is not notable. Clearly separate notability would need to be demonstrated. --Dhartung | Talk 20:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Jehovah's Witnesses. Most organizations have websites now. The fact that it is a new website as mentioned above is the definition of db-web. -Djsasso (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, although it might possibly be notable for being one of the very very very very last major organizations to get a working website. Nah, redirect. Keeper | 76 22:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:It already has a website, several.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 02:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the AFD nom, I have no problem with it (and the other redirect) instead being redirected to Jehovah's Witnesses, as the site is legit, just not notable by itself. Pharmboy (talk) 14:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mansinthe

Recently created article about a brand name of the alcoholic drink Absinthe. Endorsed (created?) by Mariln Manson. Other than that, no assertion of notability. One google news article was found. Everything "regular google" was promotional, or homepage related, or wiki/blog/unreliable. The News article is about Absinthe, with a one word mention of Mansinthe. Also tagged with a copyright tag from Corenbot. Keeper | 76 20:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as ~~either copyvio or~~ (non-notable) advertisement~~, or both~~. -FrankTobia (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The content of this article is now properly licensed under the GFDL as attribution has been made. — madman bum and angel 19:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination -- I couldn't find anything either. --A. B. ^(talk) 17:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Although the article needs improvement, the comments below, results found through news searching, and additional expansion of the article indicate that the subject fulfills the notability requirements of WP:ORG by having "demonstrable effects" on economy and culture. Non-admin close. --jonny-m t 06:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Association of Registered Graphic Designers of Ontario (RGD Ontario)

Delete no indication that this trade group is notable; there are many trade associations at the local, regional, state/provincial, national, or transnational levels, and they aren't all notable - this group doesn't seem to be the subject of significant coverage by independent third parties, as we expect from WP:ORG and WP:N. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable licensing body for graphic designers in Ontario. Right now it reads as promotional literature, so that would need to be edited out, but I believe 3rd-party sources can be found. freshacconcispeaktome 22:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Graphic designers don't have to be licensed. It's a hoax. GJ (talk) 23:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm guessing that's a joke? Are you claiming the article is a hoax? It's not. The organization exists. Graphic designers aren't required to be licensed in Ontario, but to be called a registered graphic designer requires licensing. freshacconcispeaktome 23:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Google News reveals that the association's founder received the Order of Ontario, as reported in one of Canada's two national papers. I added a reference. (Sorry, I haven't yet figured out how to use the cite-news tag, but it's there).Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Second comment The notability guidelines for organizations states: "Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." I believe the "Programs and services" section can be said to illustrate a wide-ranging impact on graphic design in Canada's largest province.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per second comment above... I too agree insofar that any form of licensing will also improove education in the field, and therefore satisfying WP:N. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a licensing body (similar to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario or the Law Society of Upper Canada) rather than a trade association, and was the subject of special legislation in Ontario. If there is a law about you, you're notable. --Eastmain (talk) 05:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know what? That makes sense to me and if it isn't in WP:NOTABILITY, it sure ought to be. "If there's a law about you, you're notable." Therefore, Keep.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, professional body with notable members, needs work though Alf^Photoman 00:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interpunk

Doesn't meet WP:WEB, I couldn't find any reliable, third party sources [myspace doesn't count!] that mention or review this website RichardΩ6 12 20:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:WEB. No sign of any achievements, bands, records etc. Triwbe (talk) 20:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Call it a non-notable corp, or a non-notable website. Either way, Delete. Pastordavid (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, could be a speedy A7. 30 full-time employees is no indictator of Wikipedia notability at all, and third-party sources appear not to exist.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 03:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. DS (talk) 05:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good cause

This was tagged as {{db-nocontext}}, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't fit in that criterion. However, I'm also unsure as to the notability of the term. I am neutral on the subject; this is a procedural nomination. Keilana^talk_(recall) 19:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a general legal term in active circulation, so I believe it can be subject to an encyclopedia article. Thank you! --Smithbrenon (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is a widely-used rationale in judicial decisions. This is a stub, not a dicdef. --Dhartung | Talk 20:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article in question is on a notable legal term. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The term is apparently legitimate and notable; I've tagged it as a US legal stub accordingly. -FrankTobia (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What are we doing deleting this? Per above. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 23:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valid encyclopedic subject.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 03:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close. Deletion is not involved in this. Uncle G (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erection

Distinguishing between penile, clitoral and nipple erections. Moving them to their own respective pages makes the information clearer (please search for "erection (nipple)" and "erection (clitoral)" for examples. Casdious (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This page contains the edit history of all those pages - deleting it would mean that the original edits made in creating the content that you have just split off could not be attributed and would therebey violate the GFDL. It should at least be an disambiguation page to aid navigation - see Wikipedia:Disambiguation. WjBscribe 19:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Scribe. --David Shankbone 20:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Splitting pages doesn't call for deleting the original, it's still useful to have a single page that gives a little information about all three, and gives main article links to them. What's more, the split is highly questionable, as the information available on penile erections dwarfs the others by several orders of magnitude. When someone goes to a doctor complaining their nipples won't stay hard, let's talk. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Deletion is not the correct avenue for this. If you want to divide up the page, use Template:split-apart, but establish consensus on the split TheBilly (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Shirahadasha (talk) 05:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sensomusic Usine

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 single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

This article is entirely based from primary sources and there do not appear to be any non-primary reliable sources about this piece of software. There are relatively few google hits ~1500 and the vast majority of them are download sites, trivial listings, and blogs/forums (in other words, no reliable sources). FYI, the current text of the page is promo material from their own website, which is clearly a COI, even if it isn't a copyright violation. Also possibly of note is the fact that external links to their website have been being placed in similar articles such as Ableton Live and Max (software) (they have since been removed). Wickethewok (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Scott.wheeler (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any third-party reliable sources for this which would make it notable software.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 03:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usine is a young soft (a year) and has a 2000 users community which increase around 20% each month... How can you decide that it's not a 'notable' soft? I'm a spammer because I've included a link on max/msp page? If you look at the French version you will see that the page contains around 10 links to related softwares... So on the English version of the article I have only reproduce the same kind of link. If I resume the 'related software' section is allowed in French but not in English? Also the article has been rewritten to fit to 'wiki spirit'. (Olivier Sens) talk to Sensomusic 14:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No indication of notability. Doctorfluffy (talk) 15:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second that ! i'm a Usine user and i suppose that all software have begun small , right ...?
, and wikipedia can help little software to grow...
and i don't think that 1500 hits in google are a " few " hits !!!
in life , little things can be important too...
thanks to read , have a good day
nay-seven —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.91.242.214 (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find this incredible. This software completely changed my way of music making. Is that unnotable? It practically made possible the concept of my group of live improvised electronic music. Is that unnotable? And I know I'm not alone 'cause I can see the buzz and the spark in the Usine forum community. This is no meaningless spam entry.
I just googled for Usine myself and found this quote so that someone had written on harmony-central.com. It almost made me cry - it's so much to the point of what I'm saying here.
Link to quote
Also check out kvraudio.com and similar places for third-party entries.
Right now my faith in Wikipedia is about to fade. I'm sure there's a tiny space on your server for Usine.
best regards
antwan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.194.97 (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said to the article creator on my talk page, Wikipedia articles need to be based on reliable and independent sources. This naturally excludes press releases, blog/forum posts, and other such things. What is needed here would be secondary published reviews, such as in a music technology magazine, newspaper, or something of that sort. Wickethewok (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the format of my comment is not inappropriate; I am not confident of customs and protocol of my Wikipedia correspondence, apologies in advance. Recently I have used it for several performances with my group 3 Pups Music at a noteable music festival, the Sonic Arts Festival at University of Arkansas, USA in December 2007. I have watched Sensomusic's Usine community both from correspondences, website publications and forum posts made on the forum websites at http://www.kvraudio.com and http://www.sensomusic.com for about the past 2-3 years. I am aware through correspondences, website publications and forum posts that the software is used by other musicians in locations in several different countries. I have used Usine as a musician myself for about the last 2 years in its free version, and have been using the full commercial version of the software for about the last 4-6 months. I think it would be a mistake to refuse Usine an entry in Wikipedia.

me again, to Wickethewok :
are you really sure that music technology magazine and newspaper are " independent sources "...?
read some of them ( try "keyboards recording magazine " for example...maybe you see that time to time web forums can be a better info sources
just my 2 cents
nay-seven

my name is Stefanus Vivens,(you'll find me in google, but there is no 1500 hits!) i'm a professionnal musician since 1989. Those later years i worked on Reason(license), Ableton Live(license), MAX/MSP... i decided to grow up with Sensomusic Usine now(license), because it is a very open software, always in development, with free updates, where i'm free to do all i want. And because it is a software done by a musician for musicians, for a very special use, because it is all modular, with some audio to midi translation, analysis, and so easy to use compared to MAX/MSP, Reaktor. Usine can work with MAX and Reaktor; since the begining Usine is fully VST...next step is a VST plugg version,in order to be used with Ableton Live, Cubase, Logic...(etc) so why don't reference it? I think that maybe there is a preconception for this almost free software. about externals links, this is an extract of the Wikipedia MAX article: >>> ""Native Instruments markets a similar software called Reaktor. Reaktor is generally considered easier to use and learn than Max, albeit less powerful.

Apple has a very similar program called Quartz Composer focused on graphical compositions and there is also a free (for non-commercial use) software developed by meso called VVVV (a multipurpose toolkit) focused on real time video synthesis."" <<< with respect, Stéfanus Vivens —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.24.234.109 (talk) 13:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-I'm a sound enginer and I use Usine a lot. Usine is a powerful audio software that help us to do what we can't do with other classic DAW. It's better than Synthedit, easier than Max/Msp, and it is developped by Oliver Senso. His software deserve a wikipedia article, without any doubt. Sorry for my bad english. Moody

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Storyhill

Insufficient assertion of notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 19:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No notability? Then it doesn't just need an AfD, it needs a Speedy A7! I fear tagging the article as such may go against the grain here, but what the hey--WP:BOLD. Two One Six Five Five ^{discuss my greatness} 19:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I didn't simply delete it as a speedy delete is that it's not clear that the lack of notability established in the article was due to the author's simple failure to assert notability, or the actual lack of notability. --Nlu (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would that every admin had such wisdom. Chubbles (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on WP:MUSIC, criteria #8 or #9 for winning an award for new folk music. The article needs independent sources, however, and should be tagged as such. Keeper | 76 22:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some possible sources: here in folk song magazine, here for winning the award, and here for the kerrville awards page for verification. Took me exactly 30 seconds. I'll add them to the article if no one else will. Keeper | 76 22:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—winner of 2007 Kerrville New Folk Competition. Spacepotato (talk) 04:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable from sources provided. Chubbles (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATED ARTICLE. Please look at the article as it stands now (with 3 references for you to verify) before making a decision below this sentence. Keeper | 76 16:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was This is Articles for deletion, not Wikipedia:Requested moves. I've fixed the mess. Uncle G (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yahir Othon

I propose that this page be deleted because he is more commonly known as Yahir, not as Yahir Othon. Despite Othon being his surname, none of his albums have ever credited him as "Yahir Othon", only as just "Yahir". I have already copied this page to just the Yahir page and now propose that the Yahir Othon page be deleted. Joeschmoe2003 (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

redirect I don't see why it has to be fully deleted. Just blank the page and re-direct it to Yahir. --Pmedema (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blank and redirect. Deletion sounds a bit harsh. Two One Six Five Five ^{discuss my greatness} 19:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In an effort of Boldness, I went ahead and did the redirect. (the talk page as well) This does not belong in AfD. Please undo my recent edits if you feel this was unjustified. Suggesting speedy close. happy editing, Keeper | 76 20:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy A1 by WikiLeon. Tevildo (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hollis Chatelain

Blatant advertising... Alloranleon (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - This should have been speedy deleted under both db-content and db-context. --Pmedema (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no content and not noteworthy. Triwbe (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - no encyclopedic text, advertising. Macy's 123 review me 20:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I added the speedy tag to the article for immediate attention from admins. Keeper | 76 20:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. As it presently stands, the article contains no encyclopedic content whatever. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. None of the Keep opinions provided relevant reliable sources in order to verify the notability of the article subject. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WEB (Top Secret)

Non-notable in-game organisation. No assertion of real-world notability, and no links to independent coverage.

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

Percy Snoodle (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. RuneWiki⁷⁷⁷ 21:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are comics, trade paperbacks and novels in addition to the many resources published in the Top Secret/S.I. line that contain both ORION Foundation and WEB organizations and characters. Why target these for deletion when so many other examples similar are allowed (look at the Mystara article, it contains half a dozen articles about countries from that campaign setting. What's the difference with these articles)? Jeffrywith1e (talk) 02:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with the previous user, the only reason available for deletion is that the content is not suitable for an encyclopedia but that same reason can be aimed at any number of roleplaying entries on Wikipedia. Should these articles be deleted then I would expect all other roleplaying entries to have the same level of administrative input applied to them (i.e., deletion).

dpmcalister (talk) 07:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I too agree with the above users. Further, things like tv episodes, fantasy/science fiction concepts, etc. also fit the same criteria. Wiki is supposed to be about information that different people want to see. CMartin007 (talk) 12:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC) — CMartin007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. RPGs hold just as much importance as any other form of entertainment. When are novel related pages going to be pulled? TSSI spawned novels. --Hodagacz (talk) 14:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC) — Hodagacz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment none of the above keep votes, including those from the two editors who have contributed elsewhere, address the concerns I put forward. Although the ORION foundation and WEB organisations appear in multiple places in the TSSI line, there is no non-trivial independent coverage; and as such the topics do not meet the notability guidelines. Percy Snoodle (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My point is that if the precedent is set by deleting these articles, then all the role playing articles on Wikipedia will also need to be reviewed, with the vast majority being deleted due to an inability to obtain non-trivial independent coverage for games that are no longer published — and haven't been for over 15 years. dpmcalister (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  - Comment Whether or not other articles exist that don't meet the criteria doesn't affect whether these two do. Do you have any sources to show that there is multiple, non-trivial independent coverage of these topics? Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment There are a mailing lists and websites dedicated to Top Secret/S.I. and, by default, ORION and WEB. I would consider them to be non-trivial (one has been in existence for nearly 10 years) and independent. dpmcalister (talk) 16:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Comment - I feel you should retract the nomination for deletion. According to the guidelines from the very article you sited, the proper procedure are found here - Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines. Being a large contributor to the articles I would've thought you'd have contacted me about these issues, first. I don't believe you asked me about anything related to the articles. Perhaps you meant to put the {{notability}} instead of the deletion tag, but it seems from your discussion here you intended to skip right to the deletion nomination. Lastly, {{expert-subject}} would've sufficed and probably would have been more appropriate. May I ask why the zeal to delete the articles?
- Comment Since I was content that sources could not be found to establish the article's notability, it was appropriate under those guidelines to proceed to AFD. If you can prove me wrong by finding sources to establish that there is multiple, non-trivial independent coverage of either topic, I'll withdraw the nomination. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Again, the {{expert-subject}} needs to proceed the deletion nomination. Why are you so zealous to delete these articles? Jeffrywith1e (talk) 13:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment' No, it doesn't. {{expert-subject}} is for artickes " in need of attention from an expert on the subject." This article is in need of sources to establish notability, and none exist. Hence it is appropriate to proceed to AFD. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added one reference, and I strongly suspect there are others, I will leave it to those who know the area. This really should have been tagged for notability first to provide a chance for people to fix. Hobit (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment may I ask which one? The only independent reference I see in either article is the trivial directory-listing at nationmaster for ORION; so there are still no reliable sources to show notability for either article. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nom should be withdrawn as it didn't follow guidelines for this type of thing . The idea here is to have verifiable, notable, topics. This one may or may not be. But in good faith should work with others to find out, or at least give them time. Hobit (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All as these articles have no primary references to verify their sources, no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside of Top Secret (role-playing game). These articles fail WP:NOT#PLOT, and their heavy in universe perspective means it fails WP:WAF, and has little in the way of real-world content, context or analysis. The nomination is very clearly justified; there are no sober agruments for keeping this fancruft. This topic appears to be little more than fodder for a stock conspiracy theory.--Gavin Collins (talk) 23:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect both to Top Secret (role-playing game) (although I'm not sure about the reasoning for the "fodder for a stock conspiracy theory" argument above). Merge (a small amount of relevant material, possibly) to Top Secret (role-playing game), but I think there isn't much to add there that will add much to the article. --Craw-daddy | T | 18:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect to List of characters from Family Guy. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Griffin

This article is based on a fictional character, written in-universe style, with no real world significance or notability, it is also unreferenced and the character has only appeared in a few episodes. Other articles on characters of this genre on Family Guy have been deleted and merged into one article, so I am suggesting that the same thing should happen to this one. Blueanode (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

see also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mickey McFinnigan which is an AFD revolving around other family guy characters.
Delete Although I have seen at least 2 of those episodes that he is in, he is such a minor character that he really doesn't need his own article. If anything, merge all of the minor characters to one article. Tavix (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to a list of Family Guy characters. Which is what should happen with probably 90% or more of the articles on fictional characters on Wikipedia. Otto4711 (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (which automatically includes a redirect) to List of characters from Family Guy per the guidelines of WP:FICT. I'm not seeing any easy indication that he's independently notable, though if they appear before the end of the AfD, then obviously this should be kept. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Keeper | 76 22:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the list. I doubt this character merits a stand-alone article as he has no seperate notability from the Family Guy, which is obviously very notable. He's one of the more minor characters, unlike, say, Glenn Quagmire who appears in almost every episode.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 03:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whether he is one or the major or minor characters seems like a judgment call, and would be an editing decision. No need to discuss it here. DGG (talk) 04:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this well-presented article on a memorable recurring character from a notable show. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note- please ignore this editor, the character doesn't even appear anymore and the editor in question appears to be following around voting keep on every AFD I start just because they do not agree with my deletionism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueanode (talk • contribs) 17:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment. Don't take it personally. This editor says keep on every article, not just your nominations. Keeper | 76

I am taking this very personally, this editor is making a game out of the AFD process. Blueanode (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't, because nothing here (in Wikipedia) is personal. Don't get stressed about one "Vote". We are building an encyclopedia. If the "pumpkin" votes keep for everything, so be it. It's not personal, and xe is entitled to say whatever xe wants. Most admins will take xer vote in stride. Keeper | 76 18:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a lot of plot with no reliable, secondary sources evidencing notability. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as above. It is clear that with no real world significance asserted or adduced, this does not merit an individual article. Keep votes are an assemblage of ATAs that do not provide any foundation whatsoever for retention of this kind of material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eusebeus (talk • contribs) 20:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge same as above. Toolazy21 (talk) 13:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RealTaken Games

Website launched within last several months; no claim of meeting WP:Notability in article. 4 non-wiki ghits, none of which show a whiff of notability; no sources in article to show notability. Possible WP:COI issues. Contested prod. Fabrictramp (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N Site is new and has no references.--Pmedema (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. See WP:WEB. --John Nagle (talk) 05:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, at best a vanity page, at worst spam Gaffertape (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pure ad. --Gimlei ^{(talk to me)} 13:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quality hosting

Contested prod original research how to guide. Ridernyc (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pure OR. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OR RJC ^Talk 19:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unreferenced and not cited in anyway. Obvious OR. --Pmedema (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Fails WP:NOR miserably. Unsourcable personal opinion. --h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 03:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Savage Earth

Delete unsourced article about a nn book by nn author, fails WP:BOOK Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No assertion of notability. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 20:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Writer's Showcase Press is a vanity publisher equivalent to iUniverse and Lulu.com. Amazon sales rank is 5,767,789, which means essentially no sales, and the listing has no reviews. A quick Google search doesn't pull up any notice of this book, let alone reviews from reliable sources. Essentially self-published + no sale + no notice = no notability. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Extensive news and Google searches turned up exactly one review of the book and it had been written by the author! Non-notable book from a vanity press. - Dravecky (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as has no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Quasirandom. 110 ghits is a bad sign also. If this book does well, revisit of course. Hobit (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate++

WP:NN software. Only promotional and release announcements were findable in reliable sources. Toddst1 (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability not asserted. --Yamla (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad the wikipedia administrators are vigilant but the reason for deletion seem insufficient. Have a look at similar projects: Anjuta, Code::Blocks, MinGW_Developer_Studio, GLUI, Agar_(software). Also Sourceforge and Freshmeat, are very notable, and are as apparent enough reference. Phirox (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: any user can propose an article for delete (preferably based on Wikipedia rules). Not every AfD is necessarily evil conspiracy of administrators trying to suppress the progress and enlightement of the masses. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 00:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article did exist before (see a forum dedicated to it) and was deleted twice.

I did some work with the IDE, it is interesting and breath-taking piece of work (and often frustrating as the authors decided make it so much different from all other IDEs) but the novel approach doesn't really establish encyclopedical notability of the subject. It is very hard for Wikipedia to reliably cover software, except for the very few widely used tools. Many software articles end up unmaintained, obsolete and full of marketing. History of Ultimate++ page on WP doesn't make me optimist.

Quite a many of the other IDE's mentioned above should be, IMHO, deleted as well. For a truly massive list of IDE articles see Comparison of integrated development environments. I suspect most of these articles were created just because other stuff was already here and we don't want to feel as total loosers who don't even have a text on WP. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 00:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under criterion A7 performed by User:Majorly (talk). —C.Fred (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mindstate onsmash

Absolutely no notability at all, forum users are not notable on wikipedia. Blueanode (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I speedied it. Meets no criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia; this is just a vanity article that fails WP:BIO. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 17:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No concensus (default keep). JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hikari Hino

AfDs for this article:

WP:BIO now more inclusive in that its criteria applies fairly to Japanese porn. 1. Has she won any Japanese awards? They exist don't they?! 2. What unique or iconic contributions has she made to japanese porn? 3. Has she been featured multiple times in mainstream Japanese media? (and no being sold by Amazon or any other seller does not make her notable. Nor is amazon a verifiable source) Article flunks the criteria. Vinh1313 (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Vinh1313 (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the criteria. Got a free ride on the old criteria, fails the new ones TheBilly (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Japanese and American pornography industries are vastly different and to ignore those differences by applying the standards of one country onto the other is to create cultural bias at Wikipedia, which is what we see going on right at this AfD. The Japanese pornography market dwarfs the U.S. market. In 1994 it was reported that "approximately 14,000 'adult' videos were being made yearly in Japan compared with some 2500 in the U.S."[4]. And, in 1992, "The market for pornographic videos is worth Y400 billion annually, accounting for around 30 percent of [Japan]’s video rentals."[5] Reflecting the vitality of the Japanese AV industry, there are articles on almost 1,400 AV actresses on Japanese Wikipedia. And how is the huge Japanese adult entertainment industry represented in comparison the much smaller U.S. industry here on English Wikipedia? We're going on to 800 articles on U.S. porn stars (not even counting the sub-categories) and yet only 71 of English-Wiki's over 2 million articles are on at Category:Japanese porn stars. Even at the Chinese Wikipedia, with less than 160,000 total articles there are 78 articles on Japanese AV actresses.

"How many awards has she won?" Well, how many adult entertainment awards are there in Japan? Does anyone know of even one? No? I've been editing in the area of Japanese erotic cinema/pornography for two years now, and have yet to find a single firm source on any such awards in Japan. Yet we just assume they hand out awards like candy on Halloween, just because the U.S. adult entertainment industry apparently does? To really determine if Hikari Hino is a notable Japanese AV actress-- rather than set up a kangaroo court to delete the article-- we have to compare Hikari Hino to the average in her country and industry-- not by rules put in place to deal with a foreign country and industry.

According to journalist and Japanese media authority, Kjell Fornander[6][7], the career of an average Japanese AV actress spans about one year, during which the actress appears in five to ten videos total.[8] How does Hikari Hino compare to the average Japanese AV actress? Still going strong two and a half years after her debut, she is currently featured in 56 DVDs listed at mainstream Amazon.com. (Specialty adult services would no doubt list more.) For further insight, how does Hikari Hino compare to a Japanese pornographic superstar like Hitomi Kobayashi? "...long hailed as Japan's Queen of Adult Video... It's been 16 years since her debut film and she has made 39 movies for the direct to video market..."[9] (bold italics mine).

Hikari Hino is clearly notable by Japanese Adult Video standards. To claim a prolific, long-lived, high-profile AV star like Hikari Hino is not notable because she hasn't appeared in U.S. Playboy, or because she hasn't won an award in a country that is apparently nowhere near as award-happy as the U.S. is to openly invite cultural provincialism into the English Wikipedia. To further chip away at Wikipedia's already meagre coverage of Japanese erotic cinema is to further the cultural bias already present. Dekkappai (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability is not a numbers game or comparison. I believe the wp:bio guidelines are fair. Aren't there popular japanese adult magazines like (a Japanese Playboy) that she's the main centerfold of? Someone else mentioned that JAV stars typically appear on mainstream Japanese television. Can't you cite the times that Hikari Hino has appeared on a mainstream television? Vinh1313 (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is the overlap of AV performers and Playboy centerfolds in the US so strong that you would expect a similar correlation to occur in Japan? Either way, it still looks like you're trying to pigeonhole one culture into another. Neier (talk) 07:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not about culture or an overlap comparison. Playboy centerfolds are notable because Playboy is a mainstream magazine with a circulation of 3 million. Is there an equivalent in Japan? You tell me. Vinh1313 (talk) 06:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Playboy seems to be a magazine for middle-aged gents who like to be told how to spend their money, interspersed with the occasional, heavily "airbrushed" (photoshoplifted) photos both of tits not quite spilling out of bikinis and of straightforward T&A. I can think of Shūkan Gendai as a putative equivalent. It's different in certain ways, however; and an important one is that it seems to eschew porn stars for the most part. A widely stocked example of a mag that does include porn stars is Bejean, but this has a much higher percentage of T&A than Playboy does: it's a well-photographed stroke magazine for the horny young rather than a shopping magazine for the aged. However, I'm no expert. I can assure any heterosexual men here who are iconolagnically inclined that googlesearches will bring numerous uplifting pleasures. -- Hoary (talk) 06:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still washing Kent Derricott out of your hair? Surely you're not implying you don't enjoy familing, are you? Ah, the pleasures of Konglish & Japlish... ;) Dekkappai (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dekkappai's well-reasoned notable in her field exposition. Neier (talk) 07:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the criteria. Dekkappai should campaign to change the criteria if he wants the article to stay. Epbr123 (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The tablets Moses brought down from Mount Sinai did not have WP:PORNBIO engraved on them. As Epbr123 points out in his comment, these rules are constantly changing. But no matter what their current state, they are put in place to help Wikipedia, not to harm it. An unbendingly literalistic interpretation of these rules is counter to the clearly stated purpose of the rules themselves, the very first words of the very first paragraph of which read, "This page is considered a notability guideline on Wikipedia. It is a generally accepted standard that all editors should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception."

Judging from the sources in my statement above, there is extreme imbalance here in representation between the U.S. porn field and the larger Japanese porn field. Obviously fewer articles were created here on the Japanese subjects because there are much fewer editors specifically interested in the Japanese industry. It's natural that the English Wikipedia would lean towards subjects in the English-language world. This kind of unintentional bias is to be expected, and probably unavoidable though we should consciously work against it rather than intentionally further it. I have helped delete articles on Japanese erotic cinema which were not notable in the field, and I will continue to do so. However, using rules which were obviously put in place to deal with the U.S. industry to further that imbalance by deleting articles on subjects which are notable in their field creates cultural bias and is therefore using the rules against their intended purpose, and harmful to Wikipedia. Dekkappai (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dekkappai's argument of "notable in her field". Tabercil (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So you believe number of film appearances should be re-added to the WP:BIO criteria? Epbr123 (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't verify this, but if anyone can make out Chinese (I can't), THIS article seems to say that Hikari Hino (妃乃ひかり) was nominated for an award at a Moodyz AV award ceremony (【AV大賞】Moodyz大感謝祭). Dekkappai (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this is a Japanese performer and a Japanese award, why isn't there a Japanese article to cover this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinh1313 (talk • contribs) 06:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parts of the article are obviously cribbed from a Japanese source-- e.g. the title (in the midst of the article) and the names use kana, rather than being transcribed into Chinese characters. This appears to be a Chinese-language site which follows the Japanese AV industry. Why does this original Japanese source appear not to be online now? I can't answer that any more than I can answer why an award reported in Chinese would make the award any less notable than had it been reported in Japanese.... Dekkappai (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I asked that question simply because I'm skeptical of the reliability of the source/blog.Vinh1313 (talk) 02:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, nn, etc. -RiverHockey (talk) 00:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dekkappai makes a good case for the subject's notability. The guidelines for WP:PORNBIO clearly exhibit systemic bias, in cases like this guidelines should be treated as just that, a guide and not a fixed position. RMHED (talk) 03:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But should every Japanese porn star who's made 39 movies be allowed an article? Decisions like this should be decided on the guideline talk pages, where there would be greater input. Until census has been gained to include this in the notability criteria, the article should be deleted. Epbr123 (talk) 11:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The guidelines themselves state they are to be treated "with common sense and the occasional exception." Removing articles in an area which is under-represented at Wikipedia through strict interpretation of changeable and U.S.-centric rules results in the furthering of that under-representation, and furthering of cultural bias. Or is that another Chewbacca-defense? I've added some more info to the article, including the fact that she's been in Weekly Playboy at least twice, and comparing her career to that of the average AV performer. Dekkappai (talk) 21:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - article cites 9 independent sources, which is more than Hood Mockingbird, yet the latter article appeared on the Main Page today as a DYK item. Johntex\^talk 23:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Editing mostly Chinese-related articles and in many cases having relied on sources that are in the Chinese language, I'm not insensitive to cultural bias on WP, and have helped save and translate articles in the past that would have appeared not notable if we relied only on English-language sources. Having said that, I'm entirely unconvinced that WP:BIO, specifically the criteria for porn stars, is culturally biased. It's based on three basic criteria: 1) awards won or nominated, 2) notable contribution like starting a trend, 3) and appearances in mainstream media. Unless there's no industry awards in the Japanese porn industry, I don't see how these criteria are culturally biased. Another point that I would like to make is that a lot of articles are made on porn stars that are simply not notable, and a quick look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography/Deletion shows that the overwhelming majority of porn star articles that have been deleted in the past, at least judging by their names, are American porn stars. Which only goes to show that WP:BIO has been just as strict, if not stricter, regarding American porn stars. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, given the above, apparently there aren't any industry awards in the Japanese AV industry, so yes, that would be a cultural bias. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then it's truly an amazing feat that Yua Aida was able to win one of those non-existent awards in 2006. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Note-- Hong's pretense to cultural sensitivity in this issue rings a little hollow. Over the years he has repeatedly attacked the entire category and put "Speedies" on some of the most highly-noted, pioneering actresses in the field, Kyoko Aizome for one. He has claimed that none of these actresses have any notability comparable to their U.S. counterparts, when the sources I've cited above show that they actually have far more... But that aside, the point is that the awards appear to be no where near as common as they are for the U.S. industry. I've contacted two native Japanese speakers on the issue. Both have made efforts to help, neither was able to find anything. Dekkappai (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Just a bit more... I tend not to hold grudges, try to forgive and forget & all that. In fact I've made overtures of civility and reconciliation to both Hong and another editor with whom I've had contentious dealings. Consequently, now that I've thought over our past, I realize that I under-stated Hong's bias in my comment above. The editor has a history of virulently anti-Japanese edit-warring... at one point trying to edit-war the main page for the country of Japan into a list every war crime committed against China. So his pose as coming in here as a fellow editor of Asian subjects (odd that at Chinese AfDs he can always be counted on for a "Keep" vote) just to see that the Japanese articles get a fair deal is, at best, ludicrous. Dekkappai (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - What...? I don't remember ever trying to "edit-war the main page for the country of Japan into a list every war crime committed against China". But maybe I just forgot. I do admit I was a lot more prone to edit warring in my earlier days editing WP. Care to give me a link or two to point out when I tried to do this to substantiate this gross accusation? And no, I certainly do not always vote "keep" at Chinese AfDs. I've actually even marked some for speedy before. Concerning AfDs and speedy deletes of other Japanese porn stars, I've only tagged them when I feel they truly are not notable. But back to this particular AfD - like I said, the overwhelming majority of porn star articles that have been deleted are American porn stars, so I don't believe WP:BIO is any stricter when being applied to Japanese porn stars. Even disregarding industry awards, what has this particular person done that's made her notable, besides an arbitrarily assigned number of videos that are for sale on Japanese Amazon? Amazon is a commercial e-commerce site anyway, and hardly a reliable source. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The overwhelming number of articles created here are on American subjects, so of course they get deleted more often. The overwhelming number of articles present in the Porn category are on the much smaller, compared to Japan, American industry which has a much lower visibility, within its culture, than the Japanese porn industry does. Just the imbalance in itself is not evidence of cultural bias, only that fewer editors of the English Wikipedia, understandably, have an interest in creating articles on the Japanese porn industry. However using rules set up to deal with the Anglophone industry to actively delete articles on subjects notable within the Japanese industry actively creates cultural bias. Dekkappai (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, Dekkappai, we've been through these arguments before. To summarise - I do not believe the current criteria on WP:BIO is culturally biased against Japanese porn stars, or porn stars of any country for that matter. And I am also against using some arbitrary number of videos available on Japanese Amazon to indicate notability of Japanese porn stars. Again, awards aside, what has this particular actress done that's made her notable? According to the article, she has not made any notable appearances in mainstream media, nothing that's verifiable anyway, and she hasn't made any special contribution to the industry like starting a new trend - unless her "panty auctions" were actually something new in Japan. Anyway, my opinion on this article stands. Dekkappai, I applaud and appreciate your efforts in film-related articles, but I'm afraid I differ philosophically when it comes to the notability of porn stars. I'm going to bow out of this discussion, but it would be nice if you can provide a link or two on my Talk page to substantiate your accusation of what I tried to do to the main Japan article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I thank you for the compliment, Hong, but I think your compliment points out the bias. The efforts in film-related articles you applaud, I assume, are in the area of Korean cinema. I am in the process of starting articles on highly significant Korean films made in the decades before the current boom in popularity. How do I know they are significant? Because I lived in the country, and am naturally curious and studious about such topics. I asked around. I talked with friends and acquaintances about Korean cinema. I watched Korean TV and looked through books on the local cinema. And now that I'm starting these articles, I find that sourcing on Korean films before the 1990s-- here, in the U.S., in English-- is extremely scarce. But are we standing around looking off in the horizon saying, "Nope, no sourcing for Korean film before 2001... Must not have been a single notable film made in Korea before Oldboy... Delete 'em all!" No, we aren't. But should AfDs on these articles start up, you can expect to see very similar arguments coming from me. And I'm sure you've taken a similar argument with China-related AfDs-- in fact I'm sure I've seen you almost parrot my exact words at some. (No, don't ask me to dig through old times... Deny it if you want.) It seems that it is the subject on which we differ, not the truth behind the argument. Dekkappai (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Label

AfDs for this article:

Apparently non-notable future movie, WP:CRYSTAL. First AFD nomination was handled badly by the nominator, and it'd be too difficult to gauge consensus, so making a clean start. Running an extra day won't hurt anything, there is no deadline, and this way the outcome will be more clear. —Random832 17:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete - after looking at it, even setting aside the problems with the first debate, this doesn't seem to be a notable film; IMDB inclusion alone is not generally considered evidence of notability. Not spam anymore, but still not notable. —Random832 17:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again, due to WP:COI, WP:CRYSTAL and unverifiability. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete again can't find any verification via wp:rs, imdb and wikipedia seem to be the only significant links. Pharmboy (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails the notability requirements for films:

- has not been released and its production was neither notable nor received any coverage;

- is not the subject of any full-length reviews or articles;

- has not received any awards, is not included in any curricula and has not been selected for inclusion in a national archive;

- no sources to indicate a unique contribution to cinema or its genre;

- is not one of the most important roles performed by any notable people (in fact, does not feature any notable people at all); and

- has not been successfully distributed in any country or region where film distribution is otherwise unlikely.

The only apaprent sources are imdb and similar mass-listing sites, which are specifically excluded from the definition of reliable sources for movies. Euryalus (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN crystal ball gazing Mayalld (talk) 12:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tamer Hosny

I first speedied this because notability was asserted but not indicated (no reference). Another editor turned down the speedy and added one reference, so I'm bringing this here.

Now, the main problem with this article is that nearly every claim it makes is uncited, and there are no references except for one. I did a Google search for "Tamer Hosny" and nothing came up in the first ten pages. Of course, given the amount of youtube clips and fan groups, I'm guessing there are plenty of Egyptian-language sources; there just aren't any english ones. So in this state it fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 17:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per everything nom has said... have to agree. --Pmedema (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think we can take the combination of the Arab News description of him as a "celebrated Arab pop singer" and the number of google hits above and here as pretty strong evidence of notability. Please also note the language of Egypt is Arabic, not Egyptian. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep certainly seems notable in a large part of 'Arab World'. Gets very few english language google news hits, but if you put in his arabic name you get a fair few. We must try to avoid systemic bias whenever possible. RMHED (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not biased; I'm just saying, unless we have an Arabic editor, how do we prove that those Arabic sources are notable? Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 04:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Referring to WP:BIAS is in no way an accusation that you are personally biased. Let's make an effort to get some Arabic-reading editors involved. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was asked to take a look at the sources, and I do warn that I'm not all that great at Arabic. From what I can conjecture, he seems to be notable, but you'll need a better Arabic speaker to be sure. I can tell you that about half of what's in his English Wikipedia entry is absent from his Arabic one, which means that it's unsourced material. I will leave a rough translation of the Arabic Wikipedia entry on the talk page for this AfD. Cheers, CP 19:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again Reading his Wikipedia article (the translation of the main part is now on the talk page for this AfD) I do believe him to be notable. Cheers, CP 19:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that CP. RMHED (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 08:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 08:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Tamer Hosny is very notable and has several significant reliable sources.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep He is only like one of the top three pop artists and most famous in Egypt. I'm shocked anyone would consider this for deletion. Egyegy (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete and prevent re-creation. Kafziel ^Talk 19:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PtiMemo

This article has been deleted via prod (once) and speedy (twice) since June 2006. PtiMemo is non-notable freeware software that has received no significant coverage. There's only 87 unique Google hits for PtiMemo, and they're essentially all sketchy download sites... — Scientizzle 17:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per nom. Toddst1 (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt for repeated spamming. The logs show User:Robertducon created it in at least one of the previous instances, too TheBilly (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No concensus (default keep). JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shoko Goto

AfDs for this article:

Notability flunks current WP:BIO. What are her awards? Have her contributions been unique to Japanese porn besides being a girl with really big breasts? Is she featured in mainstream Japanese media? Vinh1313 (talk) 17:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Vinh1313 (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. There were some convincing arguments for this to be kept in the last AfD, and we should observe that being notable in Japan is somewhat different from being notable in the US or Europe. It really needs citations to reliable sources though. There may be such citations in Japanese, but maybe not - I'm certainly not qualified to judge that!--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 03:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage. Epbr123 (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having rather reluctantly done something to preserve the Kent Derricott article and then getting the impression that I might been more effective than I'd feared, I was eager to wash the odor of wholesomeness out of my hair and thus moved along the list of Japan-related AfDs to an article on this person, who seems more attractive and is certainly more cushioned. My careful researches so far, of course carried out purely for encyclopedic and altruistic ends, lead me to suggest that she's often romanized as "Syoko Goto"; this might bring the occasional substantive ghit in addition to all the dross. No comment (yet) on her articleworthiness, a matter on which I don't think I'm (yet) qualified to judge. But a couple of notes: (i) She has an article in bat-smg:WP (bat-smg:Shoko_Goto); what language is this? (Baltic, perhaps, but what?) (ii) Particularly in view of en:WP's general discouragement of peacock terms, must external links really be noted as "(contains adult material)"? How about instead "(contains photographs of uncovered tits)"? -- Hoary (talk) 05:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here I've given my statements about the cultural bias already present in the imbalance between U.S. and Japanese subjects, and my feeling that using biased rules to further that imbalance is a disservice to Wikipedia. To those statements, I add that Ms. Goto is a very well-known and popular actress within the genre. I've added evidence of that to the article, and will do more later when I can. Dekkappai (talk) 00:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:BIO as an entertainer who Has been featured multiple times in mainstream media. This is most obviously apparent when you look at the availability of Goto's works at Amazon.co.jp, where she currently has 26 DVDs listed, and it looks like roughly half even feature her name in the title. Those same types of videos may not be classified as mainstream in the US, but, while this is the English language wikipedia, it is not necessarily the US-culture-and-morals-centric wikipedia. What may be mainstream in one country is not necessarily the same in another. Amazon, with a global reputation to uphold, would seem to be a good barometer of what is accepted/popular in each country. Neier (talk) 11:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not only is relying on Amazon (or any vendor) improper due to WP:VERIFY and WP:RS, making any conclusions about the notability of the product that they sell based on Amazon's sale practices is blatant synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position that goes against WP:OR. Vinh1313 (talk) 11:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Except, I am not using Amazon to establish notability of the article. Her 26 mainstream DVDs establish notability; and the fact that DVDs of her genre are so widely available in Japan (including Amazon, and any number of other vendors) points out that they are, in fact, mainstream; and not relegated to the back-alley shops like in the US. Trying to claim that she needs to have won awards, or be unique within the Japanese porn or AV industries, is ignoring the fact that she has been featured in many mainstream medias. Neier (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -RiverHockey (talk) 00:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Editing mostly Chinese-related articles and in many cases having relied on sources that are in the Chinese language, I'm not insensitive to cultural bias on WP, and have helped save and translate articles in the past that would have appeared not notable if we relied only on English-language sources. Having said that, I'm entirely unconvinced that WP:BIO, specifically the criteria for porn stars, is culturally biased. It's based on three basic criteria: 1) awards won or nominated, 2) notable contribution like starting a trend, 3) and appearances in mainstream media. Unless there's no industry awards in the Japanese porn industry, I don't see how these criteria are culturally biased. Another point that I would like to make is that a lot of articles are made on porn stars that are simply not notable, and a quick look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography/Deletion shows that the overwhelming majority of porn star articles that have been deleted in the past, at least judging by their names, are American porn stars. Which only goes to show that WP:BIO has been just as strict, if not stricter, regarding American porn stars. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Note-- Hong's pretense to cultural sensitivity in this issue rings a little hollow. Over the years he has repeatedly attacked the entire category and put "Speedies" on some of the most highly-noted, pioneering actresses in the field, Kyoko Aizome for one. He has claimed that none of these actresses have any notability comparable to their U.S. counterparts, when the scholarly sources I've cited at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hikari Hino (2nd nomination) show that they actually have far more. Dekkappai (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Just a bit more... I tend not to hold grudges, try to forgive and forget & all that. In fact I've made overtures of civility and reconciliation to both Hong and another editor with whom I've had contentious dealings. Consequently, now that I've thought over our past, I realize that I under-stated Hong's bias in my comment above. The editor has a history of virulently anti-Japanese edit-warring... at one point trying to edit-war the main page for the country of Japan into a list every war crime committed against China. So his pose as coming in here as a fellow editor of Asian subjects (odd that at Chinese AfDs he can always be counted on for a "Keep" vote) just to see that the Japanese articles get a fair deal is, at best, ludicrous. Dekkappai (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - What...? I don't remember ever trying to "edit-war the main page for the country of Japan into a list every war crime committed against China". But maybe I just forgot. I do admit I was a lot more prone to edit warring in my earlier days editing WP. Care to give me a link or two to point out when I tried to do this to substantiate this gross accusation? And no, I certainly do not always vote "keep" at Chinese AfDs. I've actually even marked some for speedy before. Concerning AfDs and speedy deletes of other Japanese porn stars, I've only tagged them when I feel they truly are not notable. But back to this particular AfD - like I said, the overwhelming majority of porn star articles that have been deleted are American porn stars, so I don't believe WP:BIO is any stricter when being applied to Japanese porn stars. Even disregarding industry awards, what has this particular person done that's made her notable, besides an arbitrarily assigned number of videos that are for sale on Japanese Amazon? Amazon is a commercial e-commerce site anyway, and hardly a reliable source. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The overwhelming number of articles created here are on American subjects, so of course they get deleted more often. The overwhelming number of articles present in the Porn category are on the much smaller, compared to Japan, American industry which has a much lower visibility, within its culture, than the Japanese porn industry does. Just the imbalance in itself is not evidence of cultural bias, only that fewer editors of the English Wikipedia, understandably, have an interest in creating articles on the Japanese porn industry. However using rules set up to deal with the Anglophone industry to actively delete articles on subjects notable within the Japanese industry actively creates cultural bias. Dekkappai (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, Dekkappai, we've been through these arguments before. To summarise - I do not believe the current criteria on WP:BIO is culturally biased against Japanese porn stars, or porn stars of any country for that matter. And I am also against using some arbitrary number of videos available on Japanese Amazon to indicate notability of Japanese porn stars. Again, awards aside, what has this particular actress done that's made her notable? According to the article, she has not made any notable appearances in mainstream media, nothing that's verifiable anyway, and she hasn't made any special contribution to the industry like starting a new trend - unless her "panty auctions" were actually something new in Japan. Anyway, my opinion on this article stands. Dekkappai, I applaud and appreciate your efforts in film-related articles, but I'm afraid I differ philosophically when it comes to the notability of porn stars. I'm going to bow out of this discussion, but it would be nice if you can provide a link or two on my Talk page to substantiate your accusation of what I tried to do to the main Japan article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I thank you for the compliment, Hong, but I think your compliment points out the bias. The efforts in film-related articles you applaud, I assume, are in the area of Korean cinema. I am in the process of starting articles on highly significant Korean films made in the decades before the current boom in popularity. How do I know they are significant? Because I lived in the country, and am naturally curious and studious about such topics. I asked around. I talked with friends and acquaintances about Korean cinema. I watched Korean TV and looked through books on the local cinema. And now that I'm starting these articles, I find that sourcing on Korean films before the 1990s-- here, in the U.S., in English-- is extremely scarce. But are we standing around looking off in the horizon saying, "Nope, no sourcing for Korean film before 2001... Must not have been a single notable film made in Korea before Oldboy... Delete 'em all!" No, we aren't. But should AfDs on these articles start up, you can expect to see very similar arguments coming from me. And I'm sure you've taken a similar argument with China-related AfDs-- in fact I'm sure I've seen you almost parrot my exact words at some. (No, don't ask me to dig through old times... Deny it if you want.) It seems that it is the subject on which we differ, not the truth behind the argument. Dekkappai (talk) 22:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3 January 2008 Diyarbakir Bombing

Delete per WP:NOT#OR, point 5. Wikipedia is not for journalism. If this event turns out to be notable (doubtful) it should be reported on later, not as breaking news TheBilly (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOT#OR doesn't forbid current events, it merely forbids being a primary source. As this article has references to WP:RS to back it up, it doesn't seem to be problematic here. Mayalld (talk) 17:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I'm more concerned about notability. Incidents of bombings are ongoing around the world. Callous as it may seem, people bomb eachother all the time. Notability is not temporary; This particular incident has not had time to earn notability. TheBilly (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm inclined to keep the article, at least for the time being. As noted, it's way too soon to judge whether the event will be notable, but the existance of media coverage of the event is a good indication that there is some reason to believe that notability exists. If nothing further occurs, or there is no notable reaction to the event, then we can delete. I'd give it two or three weeks, perhaps? UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 18:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well the latest news (The Turkish News) say the numbers of dead and injured people are rising, and with the recent bombing of Northern Iraqi positions of PKK by the Turkish forces, i say it's worth to wait for the time being. --Overld (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if this had happened in the US it would already be a featured article that no one would dream of deleting. Counter system bias. Recury (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Recury is quite right. Nick mallory (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep attack is already condemned on an international scale and has made its way to the international media. -- Cat ^chi? 22:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep per precedent that terrorist incidents are default notable.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 03:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- [Citation requested]. I'd be interested in reading about that precedent if it's recent, say from sometime in 2007 (If from 2005 or so, then it wouldn't mean more than "porn stars can be kept if they have more than 100 films") TheBilly (talk) 09:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. —Nightstallion 09:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've corrected the article's title. —Nightstallion 09:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Recury. --Pwnage8 (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Recury. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No concensus (default keep). for detailed rationale see talk page. JERRY ^talk _contribs 21:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bluetooth advertising

Delete article just seems to be promoting an entirely new way for spammers to attack. Article is also an apparent WP:COATRACK to promote the adpod product. Mayalld (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Just a bunch of advertising. Tavix (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. There's nothing there, not even an assertion of notability. Bearian (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per improvements including at least two good sources. Bearian, a/k/a Bearian'sBooties (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - bluetooth advertising is notable (and in my personal opinion, vile and evil). The current article is exactly as stated by the nom, a thinly disguised vehicle to tout the adpod. I've rewritten it as a referenced stub. -- Whpq (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even after rewrite. The current text announces existence of yet another technology to push more ads (WAP advertising anyone?). The single statistical data is not sufficient to say how much successful the technology will be over long time. (Mis)Use of Bluetooth for ads is mentioned in the main text and the example may be added there. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply But the primary criteria for notability is that it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The Wall Street Journal and CNN are undoubtedly reliable sources. And if you look at the references used in the article, they are from 2005, 2006, and 2007. So it seems to me that this satisfied WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:V. -- Whpq (talk) 13:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It writes (and warns) about a technology to spread spam. Similarly, we could delete articles about spam, thieves or biological warfare. All these things exist and people should be aware of them. Nevertheless, I would rename the article to "bluetooth spam" or a similar name.147.175.98.213 (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Fitzgereau

No support for claim of notability. "Sean Fitzgerald" "competitive eating" only hits Wikipedia, and "Sean Fitzgereau" gets nothing (-The Bold Guy- (talk · contribs) moved the article, but didn't change the content). I should note that the given source[10] contains no mention of this person, no matter the spelling. Without any reliable sources, or even any crappy unreliable ones, this fails WP:V. — Scientizzle 16:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion Please move it from that list! The real name should be "Fitzgerald" instead of "Fitzgereau"; I wrongly made the move and ask you to move it back! When you do so, you'll see you will find hits on google. Please, most back to Sean Fitzgerald and I assure you you'll find hits on google to that name! Then you can get this article of the list for deletion. Thanks in advanche, -The Bold Guy- (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The move can happen later, but won't fix the fact that there's no Google hits for "Sean Fitzgerald" "competitive eating" and there's no "Sean Fitzgerald" on the given reference. — Scientizzle 17:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is also a state office holder in New York with the same name, who is not the same person. Bearian (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:V is policy and I can't find anything to back this person up in terms of reliable sources.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 03:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no reputable outside sources that back up this article. The only source given doesn't mention this person at all. TGreenburgPR (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The move has caused some degree of confusion; I've just closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Fitzgerald, where the supposed subject of this article has commented, asking for "keep but clean-up". ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 09:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V, WP:RS and WP:HOAX - no evidence provided for the existence of this person. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 09:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aylsham high school

Delete vanity page for nn school Mayalld (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, as non-notable. Thanks!, ‽² (Talk²/Contributions²) 16:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep History has shown that with a small amount of work most articles on High Schools can be improved to meet notability requirements. Note that this AFD was started 1 minute after the creation of the article. This article should be allowed to improve to the level of most High School articles.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep - firstly artical has been edited to better suit wikipedia criterea. - secondly mayalld if clearly a head teacher of a jealous school and wishes to keep pages about other schools off wikipedia, lokk at the school page's nominated for deletion aver the past few weeks he has nominated over half of them yet ignors any vanity in other articles not concerning rival schools.
- Comment I would caution you to assume good faith. I am not the headteacher of any school. I amd not a teacher at all. Mayalld (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Noroton (talk) 18:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With a few additions I've just made, the school clearly meets WP:N criteria with information from two local newspaper articles, including one about the school receiving a national award. I've wikified it a bit, but more should be done, perhaps including changes to my edits. A minute is really too soon to be nominating a school for deletion. Wikipedia has a long and strong tradition of letting articles grow as an alternative to proposing deletion, and 60 seconds is not enough time to determine that a subject is not notable. Particularly since I was able to determine that it is notable in about the same period.Noroton (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Above and beyond the broad general consensus on notability of high schools, this article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Kudos to User:Josef-harn, the article's creator, and to User:Noroton for their work in expanding the article. I am deeply disturbed by yet another example of a drive-by AfD, created within one minute of the article's creation. I fail to see how on earth the nominator could have fulfilled his obligations under Wikipedia:Deletion policy to assess notability, edit, improve or merge the article in the 60 seconds after the article was created. Furthermore, as specified at Wikipedia:New pages patrol (of which our nominator is a member), patrollers are cautioned to "patrol new pages from the bottom of the first page of the log. This should give the creating editor enough time to improve a new page before a patroller attends to it, particularly if the patroller tags the page for speedy deletion. Tagging anything other than attack pages or complete nonsense a minute after creation is not constructive and only serves to annoy the page author." All Wikipedians should be appropriately annoyed that any AfDs are being created with this unjustifiable haste. Alansohn (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Kindly stick to the issue in point (the deletion or otherwise of this article), rather than indulging in personal attacks on me for nominating the article. Mayalld (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh no, that wasn't a personal attack, that was a criticism. There's a big diffierence. And it was a criticism of an action that costs the rest of us time and bother. That criticism belongs right here because it should be read by other editors so that they can consider whether or not they want to burden their fellow Wikipedia editors in the same unnecessary way. A personal attack would have disparaged you as an editor or as a person, which would have been wrong and which Alansohn did not do. Noroton (talk) 03:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment per WP:DUCK it was a personal attack. The only issues in an AfD are about the article, and criticisms of the bringing of the AfD ought to have no bearing on the AfD, and are consequently irrelevant. Mayalld (talk) 08:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Reply: With respect, per WP:DUCK: "Then show proof (webbed feet, bill, etc) proving as much." Noroton (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see why the authors are unhappy, but so far nothing in the present article has suggested anything notable about Aylsham High School. The references now there show that the school exists, has a uniform and has feeder schools, has banned mobile phones, has an award-winning anti-bullying project and so on. If it has notable features, then the nature of an AfD is that there's time to add and reference them. As the article stands now, if this school is notable (suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia) then it seems to me that most schools are. And that can't be what notability is about. Xn4 21:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree What the references show is that multiple, independant, reliable,secondary sources find the school and what occurs there "Worthy of Note" which is the heart of WP:N. This is refleced in the fact that WP:OUTCOMES notes that the majority of High School articles have been found notable when they arive at AFD. Although it's not policy at this time I believe that this article as it now stands it would also fall in line with the proposed WP:SCHOOL policy.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - most high schools can be sourced to meet WP:N which is why the consensus is that they are notable. OTOH most elementary schools don't have such sources available so that consensus is that they should be merged except for a notable minority. To say that an "award-winning anti-bullying project" is not notable is, frankly, bizarre. TerriersFan (talk) 23:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - High school, seems to meet notability. Glad we can keep having this same argument everyday. matt91486 (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - another very poor nomination. Sources should be sought before nominating. The school now meets WP:N and further sources are available from which additional expansion can take place. TerriersFan (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - High schools are notable and this should not have been up for AfD within one minute of the the article's creation. --Oakshade (talk) 03:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Numerous sources help establish notability and verify content. Meets notability guidelines. --Hdt83 ^Chat 05:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. This nomination clearly violates editing policy. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Did you enjoy joining in with the personal attacks? There is nothing in WP:EP which forbids nominating an article for AfD, and I invite you to retract your incorrect statement above. Mayalld (talk) 12:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Claiming that a nomination violates policy is no more a personal attack than claiming that an article violates policy. From WP:EP: "the submission of rough drafts should also be encouraged as much as possible" and "...in cases in which the article obviously has no redeeming merit whatsoever, delete it outright. The decision to take the latter action should not be made lightly, however". Making a decision that an article is worthy of deletion with only one minute's thought is taking it lightly. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article was submitted to AfD, a process which gives 5 days to reach a conclusion to delete an article. That is hardly taking the decision lightly. There are huge numbers of articles in Wikipedia that are there, not because somebody actually has something useful to say on the subject, but because somebody thought there ought to be an article on the subject but had nothing to actually say about it. There aren't enough people around to "save" more than a small proportion of such articles, and for the most part articles that have been created as a placeholder by somebody with nothing to say should be deleted. Nine times out of ten, that is their fate. Occasionally somebody will come along and improve the article instead, but it is the exception. I have no problem with any of this. If I AfD an article and it is improved instead, all well and good (want to bet that it would still have been improved if I added a couple of improvement tags to it, because experience says otherwise). What I object to is the actions of a small group of editors who don't want to argue the individual case, but would rather fling a bit of mud with false accusations of breaches of policy in the hope that it will "see-off" the nominator from nominating anything in their ___domain again. My nomination clearly runs counter to the consensus in this case, which I accept. That does NOT mean that nominating it was a breach of policy, and I find the wikilawyering that people have indulged in here very distasteful. It is also a complete waste of your time, because I'm not somebody who runs away when faced with bullying. I will continue to nominate articles that I believe have no merit as I see fit, although you may rest assured that there will be no mass nominations to make a WP:POINT. I have no intention whatsoever of stooping to the same level as those who have attacked me. Mayalld (talk) 13:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have made no personal attack, and invite you to withdraw that accusation. I simply gave my opinion on what should happen to this nomination and provided a reference to policy in support of that opinion. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please re-read what you wrote! Yes, you gave your opinion on what should happen to this nomination. Upon that much we can agree, and whilst our views differ that is all well and good. However, given that the policy you quoted contains no injunction forbiding nominating articles for consideration by AfD it cannot have been in support of your keep opinion. Your post was more to do with trying to warn me off nominating in your playground than it was about the outcome of this AfD. Mayalld (talk) 15:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The inability to distinguish between practices that are not explicitly prohibited by Wikipedia policy, and the failure to consider the clearest possible admonitions in Wikipedia:Deletion policy, Wikipedia:Editing policy and elsewhere to respect the new articles being created by researching, editing, improving, merging or tagging articles before the mad dash to deletion, has raised justifiable concerns by nearly all participants in this AfD, which was submitted in under 60 seconds after the article was created. Among all the rhetorical backflips and rationalizations, I particularly enjoy the promise that "you may rest assured that there will be no mass nominations to make a WP:POINT", which unfortunately is already happening. The overwhelming rejection of your arguments for deletion here AND of the circumstances under which you created this AfD, should represent a rather clear consensus that you need to reevaluate the criteria and practices you use in proposing articles for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is not the case, and I invite you to retract it. I have indeed nominated a number of articles for deletion, but that is nothing new. What is also not new is that the majority of articles that I nominate are actually deleted. Sure they don't all get deleted, and I'm sometimes at odds with others as to whether an article is notable, but why is that a problem? You seem to be attempting to create a situation where people don't dare nominate anything for deletion lest the bullies leap in and give them a good kicking. Mayalld (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem seems to stem from the near total involvement in deletion of articles and the corresponding lack of involvement in creating and improving articles. There are surely many articles that merit deletion, speedy or otherwise. Yet there are many articles created each day that are worthy articles, that need to be improved and expanded. For all articles other than hoaxes or complete nonsense, the nominator has an obligation to investigate potential claims of notability. What seems to be happening -- and you are far from alone in this disorder -- is that after reading so many articles looking for potential deletes, that they all start looking like deletes, and you stop making the effort to bother even checking. That so many of your nominations have been so resoundingly rejected should tell you that your "deletedar" is picking up articles that have little or no justification for deletion. You need to start recognizing that these instant deletions, created within minutes of creation, send the worst possible message about Wikipedia to those new editors creating their first articles. Making a genuine attempt to observe Wikipedia:Deletion policy and demonstrating good faith to all articles and their creators, will go along way in dealing with these disruptive problems. Spending a day or two solely editing, improving and adding sources to the articles you would otherwise have prodded or AfDed, can go a long way to understanding the position of the targets of your persistent deletion efforts. Alansohn (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Verifiable, NPOV, noted by the press. Comment: Poorly written new articles can be tagged, contributors can be given helpful advice, articles in tag categories can be combed for improvement/AfD. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable etc. Also, people please tag things before bringing them to AfD unless you have reason to believe they won't be able to be shown to be notable. At this point, bringing a High School here should not be done lightly. Hobit (talk) 03:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and redirect to Thames Valley District School Board. For detailed rationale, see talk page JERRY ^talk _contribs 21:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Riverside Public School

Delete nn primary school Mayalld (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please not another school Afd... We need to have a better consensus regarding schools because there are many editors that have it in their mind that all schools are notable and another set where some are and some aren't. As I know it, the some are and some aren't have been the prominent view point... so I ask that those who are feeling all schools are notable, please consider the true notability of this article. --Pmedema (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, expanding on the comment. It may be useful for editors to read Wikipedia:Notability (schools) before expressing an opinion. To summarize, there is no current consensus on broad notability guidelines for schools, so each has to be considered on its own merits. WP:N is the guideline to follow here. --Fabrictramp (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable. GJ (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the school district Thames Valley District School Board. RMHED (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We should be adding more school articles to Wikipedia not DELETING THEM I think you should give this project an extra 4-6 weeks until the school knows about it, by then the article will be bigger!!! Mofeed.sawan (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although I see the need to add more information to make this article worthy of being on Wikipedia, I do see value in giving our younger audience some more time to get this article up-to-standard. I think three to four weeks is reasonable giving that its Christmas holidays and kids are busy with other (none school related) activities! After all, what’s four weeks if we can get elementary schools excited about our great repository of knowledge - Wikipedia?Wayne.Rashid (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC) — Wayne.Rashid (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Merge to either Thames Valley District School Board or List of schools in London, Ontario. Insufficient secondary sources. DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Thames Valley District School Board. The far bigger problem is the knee jerk deletionism, usually evidenced by a perfunctory "per nom" as an excuse for deletion, without any evidence that the article has been read, let alone its notability meaningfully considered. As with most primary schools, there are few secondary sources available, and this article exemplifies that. If additional sources become available, the article can be changed from a redirect to a a standalone article. Alansohn (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't see how you can Merge Riverside to the School board, also Why do you have to delete the article? 21:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete/Redirect Delete and redirect to school district page. Primary schools should not have their own pages. -- Dougie WII (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then ~~Redirect~~ As written, this school fails even the generous proto-policy for school notability. The absence here of the usual editors who find sources and improve the article suggests that they tried and failed to do so. AnteaterZot (talk) 06:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Could someone please explain the delete then redirect suggestion. What is the point of that? I would only think that would only be necessary for a copyvio or BLP-violation. "Merge" I understand, "redirect" I could understand, "delete" seems unnecessary but vote is understandable, but "delete and redirect"? An honest request for enlightenment, please. DoubleBlue (Talk) 07:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Typically, children who edit their own school's articles will undo a redirect. Deleting the article makes this harder, and allows for a Speedy Deletion tag under G4. AnteaterZot (talk) 07:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Typically, children are the ones vandalizing school articles. Why not turn all school articles into redirects and avoid the problem. I have to agree that delete and redirect is counterproductive. Alansohn (talk) 07:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - They can vandalize a redirect. AnteaterZot (talk) 07:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Then let's delete all articles that children might vandalize. That'll show them, those darn whippersnappers! Alansohn (talk) 07:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I guess I'm thinking about my belief that one district page will have more eyes on it than many individual pages. I also think that people are not remembering that Wikipedia's search engine will usually lead people to an article even if there is no redirect. AnteaterZot (talk) 07:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, I understand the motivation now but strongly disagree with the suggestion. It's even easier to revert than it is to nom CSD. DoubleBlue (Talk) 07:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable elementary school. -Djsasso (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chick Flick (movie)

Unreferenced future film. WP:CRYSTAL. Dougie WII (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:CRYSTAL. The movie may be coming out but there isn't enough information to make this article worth it. When the movie does come out or is near to coming out and we can achieve WP:V then the article can be recreated. In the mean time it should not be here yet.--Pmedema (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pending sources that address WP:V & WP:N. "Chick Flick" "Adam Cano" gets no Google hits. — Scientizzle 23:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:V, WP:CRYSTAL.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was benefit-of-the-doubt Keep. JERRY ^talk _contribs 21:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paulo Bellinati

Tagged for CSD as a non-notable biography, however, a Google search turns some things up. Strictly a procedural nomination. Keilana^talk_(recall) 16:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I speedy-ed the article and restored it after I got a message Bellinati is an important guitarist and composer. A Google search for "Paulo Bellinati" (with quotes) gives 69000 entries and the German and Portuguese wikipedias have Bellinati entries too. No opinion from my side, some references would help greatly. --Tone 20:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If someone who knows Portuguese could try looking for references, that'd help. I have no opinion here. He could well be notable going on the evidence.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be notable from Google searches. Numerous articles about the artist and his work from various sources around the world. Amazon.com lists 34 CD's, some of which are his own productions, while others appear to be collaborations (appeared as a member of the band).--Jeff Johnston (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete as unsourced spam. Even if notability can be established the article would have to be rewritten from scratch. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SL Nuneham

Delete nn vessel, and possible WP:COATRACK to enable the author to continue attempts to promote his company Mayalld (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a 100+ year old ship certainly could be notable, but (sadly) I could find no independent coverage to establish notability. Maralia (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (per WP:N) unless independent, reliable sources demonstrating notability can be produced. They are currently lacking and a preliminary search does not turn any up. MastCell ^Talk 20:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; having messed around in boats in the past, I'm afraid that they are rarely notable in and of themselves; with no sources and with the author a suspected puppet/master introducing spam links and advertising for Thames Steam Packet Boat Company trips, I don't feel Wikipedia will be less of an encyclopedia without this article. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 22:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the past I think we have consistently regarded all ships to be notable, for the usual reason that there is always information available. But this particular article seems to be borderline spam. DGG (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Jeremy Lespi

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

The result was speedy deleted by Mecu (talk · contribs) per WP:CSD#G7 (author blanked). Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 20:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Jeremy Lespi

This person claims to be a published poet and professor, but there is no claim that surpasses WP:PROF. weak delete, pending other opinions. Xoloz (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete - It appears that this is an admiration article. Possible condolences to Mazielouisemontgomery because Robert Jeremy Lespi died December 28, 2007 after a lingering fight with multiple health problems. Unfortunately, none of the poems appear to have been published and does not meet WP:N. His funeral is today at Bolton Letlow Chapel with burial to follow in Columbiana City Cemetery [11]--Pmedema (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

""do not delete"" - All of his poems have been published, as you can see in the article in his list of publications. Some of them were published online, some in print publications. His poetry chapbook was published by Dicey Books in 2003, and is held at the Library of Congress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mazielouisemontgomery (talk • contribs) 17:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- [12] as a reference to being published is open to free submission of any poem does not meet WP:RS. A single book in the Library of Congress and no other library does not meet WP:N. I don't want to offend or take away from the personal notibility of an individual but this is an Encyclopedia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmedema (talk • contribs) 17:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Author blanked article and the AfD discussion indicating withdrawal--Pmedema (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. JERRY ^talk _contribs 22:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Moody

Non-notable. Article has plenty of sources, non of which are strictly about the subject. They may mention him in passing, but notability requires significant coverage from multiple third-party reliable sources. One award is named in the article - from a local brewery. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As notable as any other regular broadcaster anywhere else in the world, and given that he is a presenter, theatre director and actor, probably more notable than most. Meridian Tonight is a daily news programme, not some trivial occasional broadcast. Incidentally, the brewery may be described as "Kent-based", but its beer is available all over the UK (thank goodness - I don't live in Kent!) and it is, I believe, England's oldest brewery, so hardly a trivial outfit. Sources may be insufficient, but that is merely and indication that that the article should tagged for better references.Emeraude (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment: broadcasts across 2 counties, and is theatre director in a little seaside town ... --Paularblaster (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on comment Two big and populous counties though. Directed production of Head Games at Edinburgh Festival, transferred to Oval House Theatre, London. Writer of play Up4ameet. Appeared as Buttons in Cinderella, reviewed in The Stage, 13/12/05. Seems infinitely more notable than the majority of local broadcasters that have articles in Wikipedia, particularly those in the US who are only known in a single town. Emeraude (talk) 12:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to comments: Per wikipedia notability policy, it doesn't matter how well known he is. Without "significant coverage in multiple reliable third-party sources", he's not notable. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True. Here's a few for starters: Edinburgh Festival Guide 2002 and 2003, Review on Indie London, BBC News, The Stage Emeraude (talk) 12:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are significant coverage, and none of them are about him - they're about his plays. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Sc straker (talk) 01:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep and cleanup. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chaos Emeralds

Long original research essay on a fictional object. The only sources used are primary sources and there is no real world context. Ridernyc (talk) 15:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article needs cleanup and stripping out of original research, but Chaos Emeralds are a big part of the Sonic universe spanning many games (and probably cartoons and other junk as well). Things that span a whole fictional universe can occupy their own article if there's enough to write about them (page size concerns). Cleanup, strip down, improve, but keep. If, eventually, it gets stripped down to the point where it becomes apparent there's very little to be said after all, then merge. TheBilly (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep or Merge. There is one source from a magazine interview with Yuji Naka so you can't say there is no real world context, but there should be more. It should be cleaned up, expanded on real stuff, and have the OR elimiated. Though the subject matter is important, it may not warrant its own article and might have to be merged into something similar to the Minor Characters. Cigraphix (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with cleanup, per TheBilly. -- RattleMan 17:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Cleanup. I agree that there seems to be enough information to justify having its own article, it just needs to be rewritten and referenced. If not, the relevant information can be merged into a Sonic article. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Cleanup, per TheBilly and 1ForTheMoney. Zerokitsune (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the primary MacGuffin of almost all the Sonic games, real-world context can certainly be found, if not there already. JuJube (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. A very notable aspect of a very notable series.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep a notable aspect of the series which has been around since game one, and is a large part of more recent plots with plenty of official information on the subject. Some cleanup and OR removal might be neccessary, but the subject is notable, and the article is pretty good as it is, in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radman622 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has globalisation been a benefit to everyone world wide

Essay. No encyclopedic content. TheBilly (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete mostly Original research. RMHED (talk) 15:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per WP:NOT#WEBSPACE and WP:SOAP Doc Strange (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is an essay-style article (WP:NOT#OR) and I don't see anyway to rewrite it to adhere our policies or style guide. Marasmusine (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Userify under Wbena's page.. Sorry for recommending two courses of action, but I figgered maybe this Wbena person, the creator of this page, could just move it to a subpage or something. After actually creating a user page, that is.... Two One Six Five Five ^{discuss my greatness} 16:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, user pages and user talk pages are only to be used for Wikipedia-related uses. You can write article drafts or essays on a subpage, but they have to relate to Wikipedia TheBilly (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. WP:OR, essay. Malinaccier (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the fact that the article ends with a conclusion, answering the question in the title and written in the first-person, shows that our Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox policies apply. This just isn't a neutral encyclopaedia article, and there seems to be no scope for turning it into one. Effort would be far better spent improving globalization than trying to do something with this. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obvious WP:OR - --Pmedema (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Matt Deres (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Original research, nuke this per WP:OR. ><RichardΩ6 12 20:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:NOR. Mh29255 (talk) 01:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete as failing several core policies to the extreme.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 15:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Logjam

Music event with questionable notability. Dougie WII (talk) 15:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Deplorable grammar, no notability, perhaps some verifiability...this doesn't need JUST deletion, it needs a...! Oh, wait, there're no CSDs that fit this. There SHOULD be, though! Two One Six Five Five ^{discuss my greatness} 16:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rather than just slagging it off I've tidied it up as best I can without knowing the first thing about the festival, it certainly seems to be a notable event in the area and from the website it would seem to get a considerable attendance. Paste (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's well-written and the notoriety of this festival may be lost on you but not to thousands of Minnesotans.65.41.193.45 (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given time the people who have attended and worked for the LogJam org will be adding information, memories, and images. The grammar can be edited. Give it time. FeelingMinnesota (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC) — Feeling Minnesota (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete: I have done a number of varied searches on Google and Google News without success. I've also visited about half of the sponsors listed at http://www.logjamfestival.com/logjam/default.asp?ID=17&PageData=223 and have not found one that mentions sponsorship of the Festival so far. I've also searched the archives of newspapers in the area (Duluth News Tribune, Duluth Budgeteer News, Business North). In the Budgeteer, there was an article from mid-2007 that mentioned three festivals in the free abstract: "WE Fest, Moondance Jam and 10,000 Lakes Festival highlight this year's busy festival season." I presume that the LogJam Festival would be mentioned in this article, but it would likely be a passing reference rather than a substantial news item. Duluth is the county seat of the county in which Winton sits, the site of the Festival; I have not found more local papers online as of yet. All in all, I recommend deletion without prejudice to re-creation should reliable sources be found to allow verifiability of the content. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless evidence of notability from reliable sources is provided. Terraxos (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Eóin (talk) 02:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of the bands are redlinks -- not a good sign. (Of course, even notable bands sometimes play at non-notable venues.) The article doesn't even mention attendance, which might be evidence for notability. If some good evidence can be found, I will change my recommendation, but right now there's nothing here to indicate it needs an article. Powers ^T 03:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note Somehow this AFD has slipped through the cracks and is almost three months old. I can't find any mention of the festival in any of the major newspapers in Minnesota archives, i.e. Star Tribune, St. Paul Pioneer Press, St. Cloud Times, Duluth News Tribune, so delete. ~ Eóin (talk) 03:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - largely non-notable participants at a non-notable event of purely local interest. Biruitorul (talk) 04:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Case interview

Wikipedia is not a dictionary Wikipedia:NOT#DICTIONARY nor Wikipedia:NOT#GUIDE. Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference. Hu12 (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

… which can potentially have an article telling readers all about case interviews, for which this article as it stands is a beginning. What makes you think that this is not possible, given the tens if not hundreds of books addressing the subject that appear to exist, in addition to the things pointed to by the article itself? I suggest reading Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Stubs with no possibility for expansion and Wikipedia:Deletion policy to see what you have to demonstrate here at AFD if you want to delete a stub. "short" is not synonymous with "dictionary". Uncle G (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs better sourcing and more points of view but is a perfectly serviceable short article and clearly more than a dicdef. Some post-AFD improvements help it even more, but it was fine before. Per Uncle G, "short" is not synonymous with "dictionary entry". --Dhartung | Talk 21:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Syed British relationship

Original research / no context. Clearly the author is using "Syed" with a meaning different from the two given in the Syed stub but does not define that meaning. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 15:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this OR. Springnuts (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A confused (and confusing) article. If that were all, there'd be a case for requesting clean up and improvement, but I fear that is is OR, and rather sloppy OR at that. Delete. Emeraude (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly meaning sayyid, the honorific, as a grouping of all monarchs/elites. This is just an essay, though, and not worth keeping. --Dhartung | Talk 21:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's also an attack page, so a candidate for a speedy delete. --Paularblaster (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:OR, but I don't see how it's an attack page.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It gives a list of people, some of them living, and implies that for personal benefit they have abused their power to make their people politically or militarily subject to the British. It doesn't use words like "sold out", but it's apparent that this is what is meant by "bringing into the British fold". --Paularblaster (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus --JForget 00:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Children With Leukaemia

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 15:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Worthy but non-notable. Springnuts (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep, revised article does now at least asset notability (largest such charity in the UK) and this could be sourced. £10 million a year turnover. Springnuts (talk) 18:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep. This is the largest child cancer charity in the UK. Google News turns up reports on fund-raising activities and high-profile projects (like the BBC report on the new cancer research unit at Bristol Children's Hospital); Google Scholar turns up specific research projects they've funded. The article certainly needs work, but deletion is an extreme measure. --Paularblaster (talk) 15:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment The question is - what makes this charity Notable. So far, from the article, nothing. I am happy to change my 'delete' view if notability is shown in the article. Regards, Springnuts (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reply: you could always read the links and edit the article if it bothers you so much. I have other fish to fry right now. --Paularblaster (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I fail to see how the content of this article is notable. LightAnkhC|MSG 15:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my nom. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising".--Hu12 (talk) 15:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep We, at CHILDREN with LEUKAEMIA, would appreciate it if this article was not deleted. We are aware that it needs some work and will be updating it soon. The link to our website offers information and advice to leukaemia sufferers so information on our organisation would seem to be a valuable contribution to Wikipedia.(Zukeiz (talk) 15:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC))This Keep !vote by Zukeiz is identified as related to"Children With Leukaemia" and has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Before editing the article, please see WP:COI; since you have a clear conflict of interest concerning this article. Thanks LightAnkhC|MSG 15:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Worthy, but not notable Mayalld (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, and can be improved. --Pwnage8 (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment. I've done a bit of work on the article. --Paularblaster (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Once it actually airs and establishes notability it can be recreated. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When Jonny Met Sharky

contested prod article with no real world context about an episode that has not even aired yet. Kind of hard for this episode to have any notability since no one has seen it yet. Ridernyc (talk) 15:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - This article is for an upcoming popular television episode and I agree that there is not a lot of details as it has no aired yet. I believe a proposed deletion at this early stage is very unfair and should be removed. Jonesy702 (talk) 15:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL and WP:PLOT (i.e. a plot summary only is not acceptable) TheBilly (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the show will air a week from Sunday and the article will just be put back after it airs. Why delete it only to have it put back in a week. IrishLass (talk) 16:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

once it airs it will still fail notability and WP:PLOT. Ridernyc (talk) 16:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Why delete it only to have it put back in a week" - because it's not deserving of an article right now (consider Wikipedia:The world will not end tomorrow; There's no hurry to add anything and everything). I would vote for its deletion a week from now, because as said above me, it will still fail notability requirements. One it airs, however, there will be real information about the episode to at least put into an episode list page. TheBilly (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well the next episode of Lost doesn't air until January 31 2008 and can be found here, does this mean this should be deleted off for about 20 days then put back up again? Jonesy702 (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL... Proof of WP:N can't be established and as such should not be an article until it is. It does not matter if it will be deleted and then re-created. Let it be re-created when the time is appropriate if that is the case.--Pmedema (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The show has not demonstrated notability for any of its episodes (because there aren't any ep articles), and this episode does not and likely will not demonstrate notability either. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The only reason why the other episodes don't have pages is because they haven't been created yet. Let's remember Rome wasn't built in a day so you have to understand these things take time. Jonesy702 (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article states it will be done live, which differentiates it from the rest of the series. It is a premiere for a show that has been off-air for two years, which is an unusual comeback. However, if it doesn't have two reliable source references a week after broadcast then get rid of it. Miami33139 (talk) 07:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject British TV shows has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carharrack A.F.C

Contested prod. Non-notable club, playing well below the Step 6 notability threshold and with no past history to make it significant. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only if they havent previously appeared at a higher level or had cup success. Sunder land 06 15:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no record of the club having ever played at a level higher than the Cornwall Combination, which is below the cut-off point, or having played in any national cup competition. No sources found to support notability via any other route either..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Due to a lack of competition the team may carry more weight locally than similar teams from around the country, but they still just aren't a big enough team. ClaretCarlyle ClaretCarlyle Contributions/ClaretCarlyle
Delete clearly not notable Mayalld (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, the major content of the article is word-for-word copyvio of the club website team history page. Struway2 (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lenka Horáková

Notability in question since September. Doesn't seem to satisfy WP:BIO. Unreferenced, and there's some non-sense with "She retired from hardcore in 2006 following the advice of eurobabeindex's pet bunny and friend and very rarely shoots even for softcore work." Vinh1313 (talk) 15:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Vinh1313 (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I looked around on the web, and while there are a few stories they seem to be about other people with the same name. [13] Of course, they're all in Czech, which there isn't a complete online translator for, so maybe "steeplechase" means something different than I think... :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is someone else, a horse trainer. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some outside references or other sign of notability is found. Note that "Lenka Horakova" is a very common Czech name and there's even a minor (non-porn) actress with the same name [14]. AFAICS there's no googleable info about Horáková The Porn Actress in Czech language. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to fail WP:BIO and there doesn't seem to be significant non-trivial coverage in existence.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, nn. -RiverHockey (talk) 17:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B21

This is a band that won some local and student awards, but does not appear to have made any kind of wider impression. There are no sources for the one claim of notability, and the link is wrong, it links to the Hindu word, we don't have an article on the track. Tagged for cleanup in September, not cleaned up. Guy (Help!) 14:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Darshan", by "Btwoone" is on the IMDB soundtrack list for Bend it like Beckham. Uncle G (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Passes WP:BAND#10 (soundtrack of a notable film), but see the caveat to that entry. Tevildo (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which caveat? That the band need to have been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial independent sources? Source would be good :-) Guy (Help!) 20:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article [for the film]". [15] is probably an adequate source for the claim, as IMDb is officially excluded - I've added this to the article. Tevildo (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why deleting ?? - I think it sounds for me there might exist some antipathy against the writer because of the problems (one month blockage is heavy) instead focussing onto the aspect of "rescuing the article". But not up to me to score. Back to the theme: Names which are less famous can become famous. Is WP a source only for celebrities? This group is active since 1996 till today. So 11-12 years existance indicates some substances. Did you know that the Beatles did nearby 300 local gigs in / around Liverpool before they became famous and started their world carrier in Hamburg, Germany ?? - Imagine, that time you'd have said this. Hey folks, let's delete them, they are local. Today you would be blamed if you look at the immortal success of the Beatles.

A source linkage to IMDb now exists, so better "we" the Wikipedians wish all the best to this music group with all objective distance (It's not really my taste of music) and... don't overtake the judge to kill them. The group mostly won Asian wards and we from Western world I would say have nearby a "0" knowledge what's hip in Asia.

Improve the article, that's a must. What I think really weak is the biographical aspect. One sentence at the beginning, that's not enoug. But not enough also to kill the article. What's about with the music style, the education of the musicians, how were they contracted for the 1st album ? - I am shure there exist details about. Only presenting a CD list and Awards is like advertising. In this point push the article into a draft status ("to be improved") and let it shape from writers who like to go deeper into the details. (Not me, I am focussed on Indian Classical Music). --ElJay Arem (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The author is blocked for something else entirely. Guy (Help!) 11:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if deleted, redirect to North American XB-21 70.51.10.115 (talk) 08:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Volvo Redblock Engine is another potential candidate. If deleted, it's probably best as a dab between the aircraft and the engine. Tevildo (talk) 21:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
B21 is a huge bhangra group, in the asian music industry. There are close to one billion people in India, and this band is extremely huge over there. Jus because you may not have heard of them, or they aren't huge in the western scene (Although there songs have been on a few US movies) does not mean you can decredit them as some sort of uni band. Granted, the page has yet to be developed, but to remove this page for for B21 PLANE would be ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.67.149.165 (talk) 08:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless references verifying the awards claims are provided AND it can be established that these awards are "major" (as specified in WP:MUSIC), I don't see how they pass WP:MUSIC. Precious Roy (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC) !vote changed to Keep Based on this article I found, I now think they meet WP:MUSIC. More and better references would be preferred, but I think this is at least enough to keep the article. Precious Roy (talk) 02:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Notability and NPOV have been satisfied. Most of the concerns on the wording and material that should not be included are not issues for WP:AFD. These issues should instead be taken directly to WP:EDIT. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confraternity of Catholic Saints

Delete vanity article by/about nn organisation. The article has many, many references, all of which appear to be self published. Mayalld (talk) 14:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: it does not seem to have any claim to notability, nor independent sources pointing to it (and what does the external link to the Vatican mean?). Goochelaar (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article about a non-notable organization. Springnuts (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Kannie | talk 18:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have found a reference from an independent organization that discusses the Confraternity. This is from Croatia. I disagree for the deletion.--Sirrodz (talk) 23:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC) — Sirrodz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Still I stand to my word of not deleting this article because there are now references from independent organization of its recognition and one thing more the websites used are not self published or created.--Sirrodz (talk) 04:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC) — Sirrodz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- If there exist independent, realiable sources, please insert them. As the article stands now, the references are of the kind "The Confraternity of Catholic Saints Official Website Homepage" which, you will agree, look very much "self published or created" by the Confraternity of Catholic Saints. Happy editing, Goochelaar (talk) 10:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have already found resources that talks about the Confraternity. About its recognition in Croatia. But the text is in Croatian and I have a hard time translating it. I have found a website named The Croatian World Network and I have found a article there, telling the pilgrimage of the Director through images with captions that cannot be seen in the website of the CCS. Yes many of the references where from their website because these are the informations about their Confraternity. And there is no best reference about their Confraternity except their own. But as I have said I have already found and put some citations from other independent references. Thank you for your comments. At least I am learning very much.--Sirrodz (talk) 11:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep The article as it stands today seems meticulously researched and referenced and is about an organisation with enough presence in the Phillipunes to be notable. I have some concerns about NPOV though.Riversider2008 (talk) 12:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All entries in the article were from references and some informations were translated to what I read. And I did not put any opinions on all the entries. It is basically in a neutral point of view.--Sirrodz (talk) 12:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - My NPOV concerns relate to the use of terminology that is prevalent in the Roman Catholic church, but which are not used or understood in the same way by non-Roman Catholics. An example might be referring to the Pope as 'The Holy Father' rather than merely 'The Catholic Pope' (This is similar to the way that Moslems refer to Mohammed as 'The Prophet' (pbuh), while people belonging to other religions might object to this. pointing to the existence of other prophets.) Other NPOV questions about the article might be 'what does 'promoting holiness' actually mean in this context? Perhaps 'promoting spiritual awareness and practice in line with the doctrines of the RC Church' might be a better way of putting this. None of these NPOV objections would be strong enough to justify deletion of the whole article though.Riversider2008 (talk) 13:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand. Honestly, I am a Roman Catholic. But the case is those lines you have mentioned are from their website. And I think it is unethical for me to just change it when I know that I am only copying in their website. Well, let us see. I will work more to improve the article. Thank you for that.--Sirrodz (talk) 13:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - We have a problem here. Wikipedia is not a backup of personal pages of people and association: it is an encylopedia, so we are not bound to exactly quote them, especially when their use of words is not universally acknowledged. To offer a single example, in the very first sentence the article says that CCS is devoted to "promoting Holiness through the lives and works of the Saints". But what does "Holiness" mean? It is not a universally defined term (as, say, hypotenuse or London): each religion or ethic has its own concept of holiness, if any. So in a non-confessional encyclopedia we cannot use words in the sense in which a particular subset of humanity uses them.
      On the other hand, I still believe that the subject of the article is non-notable and I still cannot see multiple, reliable, independent sources. Goochelaar (talk) 14:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you for that. Then I understand now. So I will edit it to make it better.--Sirrodz (talk) 14:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the current version seems adequate. By the way, I do not completely agree that there is a NPOV problem with of the wording. For the general examples used, for an Islamic subject "The Prophet" is clear & NPOV; indeed to insist on saying the Muslim Prophet would be against NPOV, implying "the person whom the Muslims for some reason seem to consider the Prophet." (& even in islam, there are other prophets The term by itself in English when capitalized means Mohammed unless the context is otherwise (and similarly for the Holy Father). For that matter, there's more than one London; but we know which London we mean, unless specified otherwise. For the particular article, Saints is perfectly clear also in this context. "Holiness" would not normally be capitalized in a non-denominational context, so while it is clear what is meant, considering the title of the article, the style in general should be a little less parochial. DGG (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "The person whom Moslems regard as The Prophet" I feel IS a very NPOV way of describing the status of Mohammed. Most non-moslems do not regard Mohammed as THE or even A prophet, so describing him as such cannot be NPOV, any more than describing Christ as 'The Saviour of the World and the Son of God' can be NPOV. (In this case NPOV would be "The man Christians regard as Saviour of the world and Son Of God". NPOV does not require us to repeat the claims that Religions make about their objects of worship or leading figures uncritically. If it did, it would lead us into all sorts of difficulties. For example, there exists a whole section of Christianity, which at it's most extreme, regards the practice of Catholicism as idolatry and has even claimed that the Pope is the Anti-Christ. To describe the Pope as 'His Holiness' would be deeply disrespectful to Christians with this belief. The term 'The Pope of the Roman Catholic Church' avoids this neatly and is NPOV. Similarly the use of the term 'promoting holiness' in this article could easily be disputed, my formulation 'promoting spiritual awareness and practice in line with the doctrines of the RC Church' avoids this and maintains NPOV. Riversider2008 (talk) 08:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the above suggestion would introduce weasel words and unnecessary complication into every article on religion. It is obvious that an article about Roman Catholics describes Catholics. Describing Christ as the Saviour without qualification in an article about christ is indeed not correct; qualifying every mention of the Saviour in articles about Christian institutions is absurd. DGG (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - delete now my view has changed to one of delete. Many irrelevant extras have subsequently been added to this article. This is no longer an article about the CCS, but about many other things besides, which should be listed separately. The original article is a bit like a 'trojan horse' which has been used to smuggle in many other things which are not directly relevant to the subject heading. get it deleted.

Riversider2008 (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Still, Keep the article because as I can see it all things that where put in the article where relevant to to it. All additional texts were needed so that the concept of the CCS can be fully understand by readers.--Sirrodz (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The Placebo Effect (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Symbiosis Commission (Star Trek)

Not even close to being notable enough. Mentioned in only three or four episodes and was never a major part of any plot. Philip Stevens (talk) 14:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Trill (Star Trek), it has no meaning outside of the Trill species anyways. Yng varr 14:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge per Yngvarr. Malinaccier (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:V, WP:NOT#PLOT and there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gavin Collins. Doctorfluffy (talk) 15:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails basic notability requirements and is just a plot summary for a very very minor number of episodes in comparison to the length of the series. Collectonian (talk) 07:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Collectonian (talk) 07:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The Placebo Effect (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Click company

Delete nn neoligism (only 28 GHITS for "Pure click company") Mayalld (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this neologism. Springnuts (talk) 14:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research, neologism. It seems like it could be a notable topic, but this article doesn't prove that. I have no objection to a sourced rewrite on this concept.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (AfD withdrawn by nom); non-admin closure. Funeral 19:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of punk bands

The list has no refs and it's easily replaceable with Category:Punk rock groups. Funeral 14:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Merge. Per WP:CLS and here. Malinaccier (talk) 16:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge, with the aim of improving the list with summaries, something like list of important operas. For example:
…
- d.b.s. ( 1992-2001) – A melodic punk rock band formed in North Vancouver, British Columbia.
…
- Propagandhi ( 1986-present) – An anarchist punk rock/thrash band formed in Portage la Prairie, Manitoba.
…
- Television ( 1973-78, 1992-93, 2001-present) – An art punk band formed in New York City.
…

− Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge per Malinaccier and Twas Now. Lists like this are important pieces of Wikipedia's list-based navigation system, and they provide the building blocks for better lists to be made out of them later. According to WP:CLS: lists may be enhanced with features not available to categories, but building a rudimentary list of links is a necessary first step in the construction of an enhanced list -- deleting link lists is a pointless waste of these building blocks, and unnecessarily pressures list builders into providing a larger initial commitment of effort whenever they wish to create a new list, which may be felt as a disincentive. Refs can be added to this list as they pop up in the punk band articles themselves. Making a list maker provide all the refs, or wait until the articles have them before creating the list, seems like the wrong approach -- it hampers development of useful lists. On the project-level (i.e., considering Wikipedia as a whole), it would be easier for all concerned if the references were provided at the article-level and then harvested by the listmakers. 'The Transhumanist 06:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge - I agree with what everyone else has said so far. Seems to be the best thing to work with the information. matt91486 (talk) 18:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The Placebo Effect (talk) 17:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Henderson Boys

This book series is hardly notable, mostly so for being still unpublished and likely to stay so for more than one year, and not exactly feverishly covered by the media: the only sources are the official websites (the article is tagged as unsourced since October). Goochelaar (talk) 14:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - utterly non-notable at present. Springnuts (talk) 14:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At least wait for the book to be published. Malinaccier (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:CRYSTALballery. Doctorfluffy (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with cherub main page, i didnt learn anything new —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.13.35 (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The Placebo Effect (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dr. Who Films

Redundant, information already given on relevant pages. Stuart DD _{contributions} 13:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. DonQuixote (talk) 14:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Info already given in multiple articles; we don't need an article for a list of three items. --Brian Olsen (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No need for an article on this since there were only 3 films, each of which has its own article. Redundant. And to be truly anal about it, there were only two "Dr. Who" films as the third was a "Doctor Who" film (and yes there is a difference). 23skidoo (talk) 15:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Reply All Doctor Who episodes and films also have their own page as well as a list Resistme (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Already mentioned in other articles, uneeded. Malinaccier (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. The article is redundant as it is covered by other "Dr Who" articles. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unneeded, redundant, and padded with irrelevancies to cover its inadequacy as an article. - Dravecky (talk) 02:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If deleted, the redirect Doctor who films should be deleted as well. --Brian Olsen (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not redirect to Dr. Who (Dalek films)? — Edokter • Talk • 17:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Make into a disambiguation page between the Dalek films and the various films aired during the series run Will ^(talk) 19:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who (film) redirects to Doctor Who (1996 film) - and there is a redirect note there that links to Dr. Who (Dalek films). We also have Doctor Who (disambiguation) which has a link to both. Stuart DD _{contributions} 19:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason The reason I created the list was because, when I added these films to the main list of doctor who serials, someone deleted it as they said it wasn't appropriate, as it was Dr. Who, not Doctor Who, thus I started a new list, for uniformity. In addition, while it currently only has three listings, there has been numerous rumours of additional Doctor Who movies, both 'The Chase' and prior to the revived series. Resistme (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the table covering the two Dr. Who (Dalek films) can be put in Doctor Who spin-offs#Cimena, rather than having a separate list. Stuart DD _{contributions} 16:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would have not supported the removal of this information from the list of serials article, and it sounds to me like someone was just being anal. I'd say put it back there, post a query to the Doctor Who Wikiproject to seek consensus, and let it sort itself out that way. The inclusion of the 1996 telefilm in this list, which is a direct continuation of the TV series, renders the whole "Dr. Who" vs "Doctor Who" argument silly. 23skidoo (talk) 15:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I removed the Cushing movies from the list because it was covered in Doctor Who spin-offs#Cimena - where it belongs. The 1996 film is still in the main list. Stuart DD _{contributions} 11:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect... I leave it up to those more familiar with the subject to determine which article is appropriate, but there must be one. - JasonAQuest (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete with no prejudice against recreation if sources can be provided to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MaelstroM

Delete NN band claims to have charted, but the chart (soundclick.com) is not a national chart Mayalld (talk) 13:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A tough one to do a google search with due to the relatively generic nature of the name, but I found no reliable sources on them. The claim to notability is charting on soundclick.com - I really don't think that's much of a chart to satisfy WP:MUSIC. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, with a more accurate g-search, I get only 2 results. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Blackout (Britney Spears album). JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why Should I Be Sad?

This is an album track on Britney Spears' latest record. There is no news or source stating that this will be released as a single, nor is there any information on a possible music video. The song does not seem to have any notability other than the fact that it appears on her album. Although the article's writing is not poor per se (there are even footnotes) I question the notability of this track... seems to be written by a fan who particularly likes this one song. Does it really need its own article? eo (talk) 13:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion: I can't we this song shouldn't have it's own article? The song 'Touch of My Hand' from 'In the Zone' also has it's own page, even tough it has never been released as a single or even as a airplay track.

I can't see no harm in this song having it's own article, to be frank. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.243.158.80 (talk) 13:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Touch of my Hand has received some notice among reviewers, juding by the four quotes on the page, making it notable. Even if this were not the case, asserting that x has its own page so why not y is not an argument for keeping y. It is only an arguement for deleting x. Redfarmer (talk) 14:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Blackout (Britney Spears album), non-notable song. Some of the information could conceivably be merged into Blackout (Britney Spears album). No prejudice for re-creation should this become a single or something else notable happens. Redfarmer (talk) 14:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created the Wikipage for the song and i think that it should have its own page because many unrelease song from different artist have their own page because they were succesful and this song is succesful too. It has already been reviewd by professional critics including Rolling Stones and its getting airplay so thats why i think the page should Stay. User:password16 (talk) 14:40, 4 January 2008

Non-single songs that have their own article are notable for some reason or another (think "Stairway to Heaven"). I don't feel that this one is. It's just an album track, and critics have only reviewed this song as part of an overall review for the album. As far as airplay is concerned, I see no sources or chart action regarding this. - eo (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinon on this, except that if it gets merged into the album article, then Touch of My Hand should be merged into its album's article too, since Why Should I Be Sad has quite a detailed article compared to that... – Alensha ^talk 13:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Doesn't seem notable on its own. MBisanz ^talk 05:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Non-admin closure. The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neve Sha'anan (Jerusalem)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Neve Sha'anan (Jerusalem)

Delete - No WP:RS found to verify the existence of this neighborhood. Even if it isn't WP:MADEUP it is extremely doubtful that such a tiny area would be WP:N Mayalld (talk) 13:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Jon513 (talk) 14:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It would be very strange to have an almost complete Category:Neighbourhoods of Jerusalem. Better just to include all of them then to delete a few borderline notable areas and lack complete coverage. Also the Hebrew Wikipedia has an article on the subject and they are notoriously deletonist Jon513 (talk) 14:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this non-notable neighbourhood. It does not inherit notability from other neighbourhoods. Springnuts (talk) 14:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep This is a well-defined neighborhood in Jerusalem, one of many places in Israel with the same name, and one of many articles covering neighborhoods in Jerusalem. A delete is disruptive and counterproductive, given that a merge to other articles, e.g. List of places in Jerusalem, should have been considered as a far less destructive option. Alansohn (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - so well defined that I seem to be having difficulty finding a reliable source for it. Mayalld (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are plenty of sources (just in hebrew). Jon513 (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - In addition to the 40,000 plus references in Hebrew from the above search, the Hebrew Wikipedia version of this article provides coverage that would seem to meet all relevant notability standards for neighborhood and community articles. As such, my vote has been changed to reflect the additional information. Alansohn (talk) 22:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Real neighborhood in extremely historic city. The nom needs to understand that sources aren't always in English and frequently not in Latin characters. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. And nominating an article that's not obviously made up or spam within 20 minutes of its creation is not helpful to this project. --Oakshade (talk) 03:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Numerous references in Hebrew to pass WP:N. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 19:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge/redirect to Kemalist ideology; action completed. JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of kemalism

Delete as soapboxing/attacking fork from the main Kemalism article Mayalld (talk) 13:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:POVFORK. Any legitimate criticism goes in the main article. TheBilly (talk) 13:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Every argument in this article is academically referenced. This argument is based on the peer reviewed publications. There is no reason for deletion. Rather, it would be vandalism deleting it. of course kemalist wikipedians are frightened. And want it to be deleted. But Wikipedia is an Encyclopeda and can not bias itself in favor of any ideology including Kemalism. The article even cites European Court of Human Rights press releases. This article only depicts the facts about kemalism.

Kemalist ideology article does not include any criticism. Like Communism and Criticism of communism it is better to construct two seperate articles.

Deleting this article would be not only violating wikipedia policies and rules but also a commiting a crime against humanity.

--Polysynaptic (talk) 14:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So, add the criticism to that article. And, please lay off the hyperbole. Deleting this article will not break any policies or rules, and will very clearly not be a crime against humanity. Mayalld (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Both articles contain useful referenced information that should not be lost from Wikipedia. I see two options: keep them both in the present form, or merge them. The worst thing to happen would be to simply delete this article, and lose the information it contains.

I'm leaning toward advocating the merger of the two articles into one as neither can be described as NPOV in their present form - I can see this would involve a lot of work to make it flow and create an article that both sides could live with - lots more heat than light to come I fear. Riversider2008 (talk) 14:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not POV fork.

There are many if so:

Communism and Criticisms of communism
Evolution and Objections to evolution

But i will not resist if merging is wiki policy.

merging is ok but deletion would not be helping.

--Polysynaptic (talk) 14:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have to say keep because there is no violation of WP:POVFORK in this article. Comparing this article with the said forking articke Kemalism, there's no attempt to avoid WP:NPOV with this separate article. Instead this article is merely a WP:SPINOUT. Per WP:NOTE, this article already shows enough reliable sources and can contain detailed information of Kemalism#Criticism of Kemalism section. Only some WP:MOS issues remain. Dekisugi (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Interesting points Dekisugi - the article on POVFORK says that "There is no consensus whether a "Criticism of .... " article is always a POV fork. At least the "Criticism of ... " article should contain rebuttals if available, and the original article should contain a summary of the "Criticism of ... " article." At present while the two articles link to each other, there is not this mutual summary of the contents of the other article present in either article, so they BOTH currently violate NPOV. Even if they are not merged, they still need to be amended so that they each contain summaries of the main points in the other article and the common rebuttals of their own arguments. Riversider2008 (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply. Thank you. Per WP:SPINOUT, which is also in POVFORK, it says: "Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork". And being POV does not warrant a deletion, but only a content dispute. Here, I've tagged this article with {{pov}} template. Of course, the summary in the Kemalism's Criticism... section should be expanded a little bit (here I tagged it also). Dekisugi (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - ~~Keep~~, still Keep... "Kemalism" article has got the summary or at least the introduction of this "Criticism of kemalism" article. like any other article of which the detail is summarized in the criticised article and the detail is particularly created for critic, kemalism article has got the summary of the detail and detail -as critic- is particularly created. The arguments which suggests that this article is POV should specifically state the reason and should specifically depict the reason. that debate took too long. there is no need for deletion.
    - --Polysynaptic (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Polysynaptic, you don't need to say keep twice. This is not a voting forum. Dekisugi (talk) 09:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article contains useful information. --Raphael1 00:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV FORK This is really a reply to Dekisugi's last comment, where he talks about WP Spinout. The text he quotes continues "the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others." This is what I feel has happened here. Two articles have been created to accomodate two opposing viewpoints. To achieve NPOV either BOTH articles need substantial re-writes, summarising the main points in the other article, or the articles should be MERGED, keeping the main points of both. I favour Merging as I feel it would involve slightly less work, and lead to a single better article. Riversider2008 (talk) 13:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. I agree with you. Both summary and detailed articles must conform with WP:NPOV. Again, POV does not warrant a deletion. I don't oppose merging, if the merged article does not reduce readability. When it is necessary to split the section into more detailed articles, then this article can be re-created again. However, I still stand for my keep opinion. Dekisugi (talk) 13:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:POVFORK. The issues in the article are recent events which the article claims to be related with the ideology itself. The personal opinions of journalists, without collaboration from the established sources, are not established facts, and most of the claims fall into Original Work. However, justified arguments can be easily integrated into the original article. --TarikAkin (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly set up with the purpose to attack the policies of Turkey, and not just to report on them from a neutral point of view. The criticism of racism is not supported by the sources, and the article is full of opinions (instead of reporting on them). There is no reason why the salvageable (neutral and sourced) material cannot be accommodated in a section in the article Kemalism. --Lambiam 23:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:POVFORK and a lot of WP:OR linking Kemalism to racism. The criticism of Kemalism is not a large enough subject to be worthy of its own article, and it appears to be driven purely by a POV motive. As a member of the WP:Greek_and_Turkish_wikipedians_cooperation_board, I think by it existing as an article by itself we are promoting POV behavior on top of my original objections rather than just adding to Kemalism. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 01:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:POVFORK and WP:OR. E104421 (talk) 09:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not neutral at all. The illustration is a false picture that might lead to misunderstandings relating to kemalists. I find a lot of statements unproven by relable sources. Like the Fascism. --Teemeah Gül Bahçesi 10:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. When asked where the article's creator got the information from that Atatürk was the follower of fascism, (s)he replied: "I did not get the information from somwhere else. I experienced and have been experiencing it as a person."[16] Apart from the fact that this implies he or she is considerably older than 69 years (Atatürk died November 10, 1938), it also shows the author's lack of grasp of our nonnegotiable policies of verifiability and neutral point of view. --Lambiam 19:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. A POV fork. Xdenizen (talk) 21:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stick a fork in it and delete. DodgerOfZion (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:POVFORK. Editor has a point to make by the looks of it. --A.Garnet (talk) 23:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the closing admin. Wheew, there are a lot of POVFORK shouts and it's too bad that the creator has been blocked for a week for edit warring and 3RR. Regardless of what the author nationalistic-POV-biased intention when (s)he started the article, I investigated again WP:DEL#REASON for this AfD debate. There's no single item there as the basis for the article deletion. Not even for a POV! Now, if some editors feel the unreliability of sources given in this article, I'd looked one of the links from the article. Especially, this news article explains that Criticism of Kemalism is a notable topic, even for ECHR. There are other news articles from reliable publishers in this article. Basically, the article has reliable sources, not an original research (it's a notable term that is also coined by a European institution), but it's not neutral. Again, non-neutrality does not warrant a deletion. Dekisugi (talk) 13:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being an attack page – my argument above – is even a criterion for speedy deletion (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G10). --Lambiam 23:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No no. The CSD G10 is used for a page that is trying to disparage the subject. Now, is this criticism article trying to disparage somebody? Who? People who endores kemalism? I don't think so. Otherwise it has been deleted without this AfD. Dekisugi (talk) 09:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, an official policy, states in the section POV forks: "A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article." (My emphasis by underlining.) This is a meaningless policy if POV forks cannot be deleted. --Lambiam 23:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is no policy yet to delete a POV article, as long as the topic is notable. That's why I agreed to redirect or to merge this page to Kemalism and when that particular Criticism of Kemalism section is getting longer in the Kemalism article, it is necessary to split the article for the sake of readability. Deleting this article by only saying POVFORK will prohibit the re-creation of the same article when it needs to be separated from the main article. Or at the alternative point, just keep the article and invite other editors to make this article become balance and neutral. Dekisugi (talk) 09:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the article is salted, it can be re-created later if this should become necessary (which appears somewhat unlikely to me). The article should then be named "Criticism of Kemalism" anyway. As to making the article "balanced": if you remove everything that is WP:OR and not WP:NPOV (including improperly sourced material because the source is not reliable or is represented incorrectly), not enough remains for even a stub. --Lambiam 12:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no reason this cannot be covered in the main article. MBisanz ^talk 05:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. BLACKKITE 01:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arnaca

A "new pokemon" that was "found" with Gameshark. Original research; Also fails WP:NOT#GUIDE TheBilly (talk) 12:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep Merge~~ but rewrite. We have articles for the other 493 Pokémon, why not this one? It appears to be an official part of the game and is verifiable through various game web sites. I also remind you that Mew was originally a Game Shark only Pokémon. Redfarmer (talk) 13:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After taking another look at the way Pokémon structures its articles on individual Pokémon, I think it would be better to merge this article into List of Pokémon (481-493) and rename the article to include a 494th Pokémon. Redfarmer (talk) 13:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Explain "Verifiable through game websites". Where'd you get this idea? "Arnaca Pokemon" returns 8 google hits and those are incidental (i.e. the words simply appear together by coincidence, like in a WoW post with a list of WoW character names including "Arnaca") TheBilly (talk) 13:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I withdraw my vote for now. I swear a minute ago I thought I'd found some verification through game sites but I can't find it now. If I find it again I'll post it. Redfarmer (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hm, you might be thinking Arceus? I'm not disputing any of the ones that are only available via gameshark/hacking in America (or at least used to be, don't know if that's changed). This is a new, made up one: Some gibberish about a glitch and gameshark code that gives you a differently colored version of an existing pokemon TheBilly (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Most definitely not notable. Some bug in a game. Come on people...Malinaccier (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If consensus is that individual Pokemon are not notable and have been merged to lists, then a glitch (like Missingno.) is definitely not notable. Google search makes it also fail WP:V.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Snow close, anyone? the only objections were retracted (right?). This is looking non-controversial - TheBilly^Talk 15:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shit, Shower and Shave

I don't quite know what do to with this one. I don't feel that it needs an article, but I'm not sure what policy (if any) would apply. The phrase is common enough (I've used it myself), and not quite slang. I pondered merging it into List of U.S. Army acronyms and expressions, but it's not isolated to military usage. Yng varr 12:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete though the phrase is used (Full RN/RM version is "Shit, Shower, Shave, Shore; Big Eats, Bag-off, Back on Board") and would live in a list of military expressions or a slang dictionary. Springnuts (talk) 12:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NOT#DICT. Possibly could be merged into List of U.S. Army acronyms and expressions. Redfarmer (talk) 12:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this stand alone article and put it in the lists suggested by Springnuts. Nick mallory (talk) 13:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. I'm not seeing that there will ever be enough encyclopedic content here to justify a stand-alone article.--Fabrictramp (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge per Redfarmer. Malinaccier (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete it may be possible to build an encyclopedic article around this popular military expression but it surely hasn't happened here. JJL (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Dictionary material. No reliable sources can be found on Google, but Google Books and even Google Scholar turn up hits for the term, although I wouldn't know how to weave these in as references if that's even possible. I wouldn't object to a merge into that list, even if the term does have usage outside the US military.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 02:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Notability has now been established. Non-admin closure. The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Housing Limited

Delete Vanity article for NN company Mayalld (talk) 12:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable company. Springnuts (talk) 12:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now it is referenced. Springnuts (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Springnuts. Redfarmer (talk) 12:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Strong keep No evidence of notability provided, although I remain concerned that perhaps we are forgetting about countering systemic bias. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Listing on a national stock exchange goes a long way towards establishing notability. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 14:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See also Armanaziz Daily Star search results below. Some are trivial mentions but many are significantly about Eastern Housing -- Mattinbgn\^talk 14:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. —Mattinbgn\^talk 22:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I do believe we are being subject to systematic bias here. This is probably the largest and pioneering real estate company in Bangladesh that helped shape the face of Dhaka in '80s and '90s. Arman ^(Talk) 01:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would be happy to change my !vote if a reliable source supporting notability could be found. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Dhaka Stock Exchange page for the company is here. According to this page the total market capitalization of this company is BDT 0.9bn which is approx USD 12.5 million. This may not sound large in US standard, but it is quite big in Bangladesh standard. Is this enough proof of notability? In my opinion, since Dhaka Stock Exchange is the largest Stock Exchange in Bangladesh, all listed company of this exchange should be inherently notable. Shouldn't they? Arman ^(Talk) 11:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why on earth would that be the case? As far as I can see, there is no Wikipedia policy which makes any company inherently notable just because it is listed on a Stock Exchange. Whilst most (all?) of the LSE main market are notable, this isn't inherent notability due to listing. Mayalld (talk) 11:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, "makes lots of money" is not in the notability criteria for companies - WP:COMPANY. Wikipedia is not a list of popular things which exist (Not an indiscriminate collection of information), it's an encyclopedia describing significant things and how they've impacted the world. TheBilly (talk) 11:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the point that you are making. But please try to look beyond the words of the policy and try to find the spirit of it. The criteria asks for verification from an independent secondary source. Dhaka Stock Exchange is an independent body who, by enlisting EHL, is attesting their notability. None the less, I have provided 2 more independent sources below. Arman ^(Talk) 12:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bangladesh is part of the world too and it seems this company is significant and has had an impact there. Bangladesh is a country of 150 million people and Dhaka, with a population of 11 million is the 11th most populous city in the world. If the company had a significant effect i.e. "helped shape the face of Dhaka in '80s and '90s" then it seems to me to be notable. I would suggest that Bangladeshi newspapers would have a stream of articles about the company and the the article should therefore be verifiable. All we need is someone with access to these papers. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 14:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability requires non-trivial mention by independent sources. Appearance in a directory or listing fails the non-triviality test Mayalld (talk) 12:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obvious failure of WP:COMPANY. No secondary sources at all establishing importance TheBilly (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree: Searching the news archive of The Daily Star I get 63 hits (Serach results available here). Another daily The New Nation, which maintains a much smaller online database, gives 2 hits (here). So here you go- two independent secondary sources provided already. Arman ^(Talk) 11:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The leading Bangladeshi real estate company is not non-notable by any standards. There are plenty reference of the company from respectable sources, too (unless you consider the highest circulating English-language daily edited by the head of the Asia News Network Bangladesh an unacceptable source). Also, check the number of companies listed with DSE. Bangladesh doesn't have an LSE that lists every company from every country, and mere listing is enough to assert notability. If non-western, non-northern articles are coming under fire, then we have a very sad encyclopedia on our hand. May be this requires intervention of WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability well established by Arman. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What is an encyclopedia? I think- "It will be able to provide information about any topic which is desired by plenty of wiki users". I want to inform you that, at least 500 business students of Bangladesh search the internet for the information about leading Bangladeshi companies in every month. Don't you think that, it will be a helpful source for them? --Farsad (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is all too easy to lose focus on the primary notability criteria: [[17]]. Arman's search hits are by and large passing trivial references. If there is gold there it is well hidden. Springnuts (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: A humble request to all wikipedians from developed countries - please try to understnd the reality of Bangladesh. In this developing country (the 7th largest country in the world by population) the capital market is not very developed yet. The culture of hundreds of analysts covering different industries has not grown. Companies are not very comfortable discussing their internal affairs with journalists / outsiders either. As a result it is extremely difficult to find any newspaper/book/magazine publishing in-depth article on an established business venture. More so, because this appears to be "politically incorrect" - as people may tend to view that newspaper/magazine to be biased towards that company. As a result, even the most obviously dominating businesses in the country only make to newspaper when there is a related industry-wide news and the company executive is sought to provide expert opinion, or there is a scandal of some sort, or when the company makes important public announcements like declaring dividends, merger / acquisition etc. In a nutshell it is difficult to find non-trivial coverage of established businesses in Bangladeshi newspapers. Furthermore, of whatever coverage is there, probably 90%+ are in Bengali, not online and not systemaically archived. Given these, if we now knock-out a company that has 40% market share in the residential plot and appartment development business of the country as non-notable; and throw away the 63 hits it got on the "only online newspaper with a respectable archive" as trivial - then this will be an ideal example of systematically eliminating developing world articles. Just to get a feel of the level of contribution of this company do a mere comparison: the city of Jacksonville, Arkansas has 8,004 resident families - match this with - 13,000 residential plots and 3,500 completed apartments sold by EHL in last 40 years. Arman ^(Talk) 02:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 40% market share, highest taxpayer in the sector, 620 acres of land, 24 housing projects, some 13,000 plots, pioneer in low cost housing, architect of changing the face of Dhaka... all that in non-notable? If trivial mention is the rationale, then let's understand that "trivial" is understood as a passing reference that is hardly relevant to the subject (like a gunman caught by the police in one of Eastern's housing projects, we have quite a few of that). But, many of the Google hits are about news that specifically refers to and discusses the subject (add 54 hits of New Age, the rising star of Bangladesh newspapers, to that). I guess, the maximum this article deserves is a {{refimprove}} tag. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Arman. The article is well-referenced now.--NAHID 08:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The Placebo Effect (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Model of Freedom

Delete per WP:MADEUP - this appears to be nothing more than somebody soapboxing their theories, and is entirely WP:OR Mayalld (talk) 12:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Never heard of this theory, however it is notable - try a google search for "Model of Freedom" + "Mijnd Huijser" - this turns up multiple independent sources such as [[18]], [[19]], [[20]] and [[21]]. The article is poor - non-critical and somewhat promotional stuff - but it should be kept and improved. Springnuts (talk) 12:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It still fails per "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought". 3 out of 4 of those files you linked appear to merely be book reviews and interviews with him (centering on his book). Per WP:NOT#OR, theories should be "part of accepted knowledge". This is a newly proposed theory. We can verify that yes, he has a theory, and yes, he's talked about his theory, but that's not good enough. To write about his theory, it has to have some real acceptance from reputable sources. As I said below, it may pass verifiability in a trivial way ("His theory exists. He said it. Here's what it is"), but it isn't passing notability TheBilly (talk) 13:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete. You are quite right - I had skimmed the google results too quickly and missed their weaknesses. Springnuts (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article has been edited - thank you both for your comments. I am not experienced in wikipedia and have edited the article adding internal links and references. Please let me know if you have any other suggestions. User:Julia1982 —Preceding comment was added at 13:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Verifiability =/= notability. Doesn't pass notability. TheBilly (talk) 13:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable theory by a business consultant: seems like a teaser for what he can do for clients. More appropriate for the consulting company's webpage than an encyclopedia. RJC ^Talk 19:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vermix

I'm submitting this under WP:NN. Beyond the fact that there are no references provided, the standard google searches pull up pretty much nothing (other than wiki mirrors). I can't find anything. The context is very unclear: a hobby operating system. That could mean a project for personal edification, something done for a thesis, or something that is released to the general public. Yng varr 12:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete for non-notability. Springnuts (talk) 12:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. No coherent results whatsoever for the Google query vermix operating system -wikipedia TheBilly (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A google search for Pramod Kumar Verma as the systems creator shows just a few hits, so I suspect this is exactly what it says - a hobby Operating System - which would seem to fail WP:N. To be honest it's borderline WP:CSD#A7 as i see no assertion of why this is notable in the text. Pedro : Chat 13:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing useful under "Vermix OS" at Google, either, for what that's worth. Clearly non-notable. Tim Ross·^talk 15:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AtulYadav

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:CSD#A1. JERRY ^talk _contribs 06:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AtulYadav

It's... a house. Wikimapia link describes it as "Atul Yadav's residence". Would have speedied, but there is no category for unnotable places. Lankiveil (talk) 12:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per it's a house. Quickly, if we can't have speedy :) TheBilly (talk) 12:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a personal residence. I'm sure it is a very nice house, but there's nothing to warrant note here. While not policy, I'd call this one WP:VANITY. Yng varr 13:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete (banging head on table) how - did - this - get - this - farrrrrr Possibly WP:VANITY, certainly non-notable, unquestionably useless. Ψν^Psi_nu 14:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, which speedy criteria is applicable though? Lankiveil (talk) 08:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Speedy Delete per above. Wow, really slacking down at new page patrol ;D. Malinaccier (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm kind to locations, but what the heck? --Oakshade (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly a speedy A1 although there is a bit of context. Having said that there's also WP:SNOW, so I'll just stick the A1 tag on the article.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under criterion A7. The article fails to assert the notability of the club. Further, while it is in the lower levels of the FA system, it is in a non-notable league: no article exists for its league. —C.Fred (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ware youth clarets under 18s

The team is not of a high enough standard as required in Wikipedias listing rules, nor does it feature any individual players or coaching staff to warrant anything beyond a vanity page. The page serves not to inform, but to simply advertise and express individual opinions; such as the unwarranted derogatory comments towards 'john allen' ClaretCarlyle (talk) 12:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. A non-notable club. Dekisugi (talk) 12:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Completely non-notable Mayalld (talk) 12:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per #A7 - no indication of importance or significance. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Hoax. Player names and purported nationalities are bogus. -- Alexf^{(Talk/Contribs)} 12:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. – Pee Jay 12:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete another day, another WP:HOAX. I won't be suprised if this is a snowball delete Doc Strange (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, and WP:SNOW it quickly. Malinaccier (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodhound Gang's fifth studio album

Contested prod. No content other than rumours, speculation and apparent original research; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Closedmouth (talk) 12:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. An article about a future album should only be created after its announcement, at whcih point it's "almost certain to take place". The fact that they've released new songs is already noted on the band page, and the conclusion that they're working on a new album is "new synthesis" of existing information (original research). Nothing here to salvage, so delete TheBilly (talk) 12:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:CBALL. Redfarmer (talk) 12:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:CRYSTAL. Malinaccier (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if you ask me some of the people at Wikipedia should get a life. I was merely creating a page I THOUGHT was relevant and it clearly is. They are almost certain to release an album in the future, even the information saying it would be was ALREADY on the the Bloodhound Gang page, which some of my distinguished peers had already written. So think what you want but this page is saving a similar page being created in the future. Bhoy Wonder (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2008 (GMT)

Delete per precedent Will ^(talk) 19:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a crystal ball. Also, no sources.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It does not meet the current standards, to keep merely to save recreating in the future is no argument.OneHappyHusky (talk) 07:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and categorize the included players in Category:Brazilian expatriate footballers. --Angelo (talk) 11:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Brazilian football players in Europe

The list contain CURRENT player only, which unfavored by Wikipedia, some nation also out of date, may share some function of Category:Brazilian expatriate footballers. Or, someone turned the list to sort by name, and list his career in Europe after his name, e.g.:

Ronaldo Luis Nazário de Lima (1976) PSV (Netherlands), Barcelona, Real madrid (Spain), Internazionale, AC Milan (Italy) Matthew_hk t c 11:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or, turn it to List of Brazilian football players in Europe 2007-08. But List of Brazilian footballers were incomplete too. Matthew_hk t c 11:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list is out of date and contains several duplications (e.g., Rodnei is shown as playing in Lithuania and Poland at the same time). I recommend moving this information to the Category:Brazilian expatriate footballers (to the extent that these articles are not yet in the category). Jogurney (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and change to suggested category as per previous discussions. Peanut4 (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and categorise based on previous discussions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom BanRay 11:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a good idea for a list. Punkmorten (talk) 10:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STBox

Promotion for a non-notable product. Failed {{prod}} when an anonymous user from the company (CTG) objected. Toddst1 (talk) 11:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it appears to be the instruction book for this non-notable product. Springnuts (talk) 12:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a how-to manual. JohnCD (talk) 12:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete - It's not an instruction book or manual, it's a explanation of a test approach, just as e.g. TMap. User:Mpilaeten (talk) 14:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that TMap has been deleted. Is there a specific reason to delete software methodologies? Is software as itself not notable enough? If so, you can delete all items under Methodology_(software_engineering)#Examples Mpilaeten (talk) 08:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It comes down to WP:N and/or WP:Spam. Articles must pass this test on an individual basis. You pointed out that TMap was similar in its lack notability and potential spammyness to STBox. You were right. Toddst1 (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - And how would you define notability? If you follow the guidelines for notability, both articles comply: there are several independent sources, listed on both articles. I'll give another example: PRINCE2 is a methodology with little sources, but used a lot. Are you telling me that that is not notable? For STBox, I suggest putting the expert-subject tag on the page, since the idea of a methodology seems odd for some people. Mpilaeten (talk) 09:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please note that User:Mpilaeten is a WP:SPA with no other edits other than promotion of STBox.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddst1 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 9 January 2008
- I'm a novice, non-native English user.
  1) Please give me some time to edit other articles.
  2) It seems like the articles in the areas of my interest are going to be deleted, so why would I spend my time on them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpilaeten (talk • contribs) 01:06, 10 January 2008
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 02:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Erik Warmelink (talk) 04:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per CSD A7 - non notable web content. Mattinbgn\^talk 12:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bravery's source

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Bravery's source

Found this while sorting through uncategorized pages. Delete due to notability issues. Google search yielded 8 hits mostly on the game's site and Wikipedia --Lenticel ^(talk) 11:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Could be speedied as A7 non notable web content (online games are included in this), and obviously no sources exist, so... why not? That's what I'll do, I'll tag it as A7.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted - No assertion of notability. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 12:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect Already converted to Redirect - Non-Admin Closure . Fosnez (talk) 12:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The University of Economics, Prague

University of Economics, Prague already exists. Classical geographer (talk) 11:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is Articles for deletion. Wikipedia:Duplicate articles is across the quad. Uncle G (talk) 12:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, yes. Thank you. I've made it a redirect straightaway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Classical geographer (talk • contribs) 12:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Editors can use normal editing tools to merge/fork articles as they see fit. Deleting the article history does not assist in this effort and concensus for notability has been sufficiently established. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anomalous operation

Unreferenced definition of a term used by some paranormal believers (how many is unclear) to describe the a number of things that have no provable basis in fact. Also used in other senses, such as computing, where its use is as you'd expect (dicdef! dicdef!), but again not often, and that is not noted in this article anyway. Guy (Help!) 10:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NEO--58.111.143.164 (talk) 10:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A term which doesn't exist for a phenomena which doesn't exist. Nick mallory (talk) 11:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the name does exist. Uncle G (talk) 12:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete research on the term is a little difficult. As Guy states, the terms are generic enough to be used in other disciplines (I've found essays for computer security and electronics). There are no references provided, so my first opinion is WP:OR. Also, the very first sentence of WP:V states The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.. With no backing references, there is no verifiability. Yng varr 11:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As the above mentioned, there's a lot of overlap and unrelated hits when googling the term (out of a small number of hits to start with). Very doubtful this can be expanded into something meaningful, so instead of giving it a chance at expansion, delete per WP:NOT#DICT TheBilly (talk) 11:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Research is a little easier if you look for the other name, given in the introduction. That turns up page 150 of ISBN 0275960358, page 178 of ISBN 0964242672, and pages 111–112 of ISBN 0786410086, which tell us that this and anomalous cognition were neutral names used by Edwin C. May at SAIC from the 1990s onward, in papers published in The Journal of Parapsychology, that have since been taken up by other people. Uncle G (talk) 12:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "The Journal of Parapsychology" is hardly the Lancet though is it? Nick mallory (talk) 13:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nonetheless, the aforementioned sources exist, along with others that can be found if, as I said, you look for the other name. So we have sources, and we know who uses the categorization and (as below) who objects to it. So the questions are how to cover the (obviously verifiable) debate amongst the experts in a neutral way and whether deleting this article gets us there. I, for one, can see a way for ordinary editing tools to get us there, since all that is required is to merge this and anomalous cognition into a third article. The title for the merged article is the tricky bit. Currently, I'm leaning towards some sort of breakout article beneath Parapsychology#Scope such as scope of parapsychology. Uncle G (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no need for a separate article on this subject. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What content policies are you basing that assertion upon? Or are you not basing it upon content policies and simply saying that you personally disagree with May's terminology, as Dr Stephen E. Braude of the University of Maryland does (Stephen E. Braude (1998). "Terminological Reform in Parapsychology: A Giant Step Backwards" (PDF). Journal of Scientific Exploration. 12 (1): 141–150.), and so want Wikipedia to support one of the points of view in the debate? Uncle G (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm basing it on forking guidelines. We simply don't need a separate article from spoon bending or psychokinesis for example. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go with Uncle G here, my experience is that he is generally (read: pretty much always) right. A single merged article for, say, terminology of parapsychology would be fine by me, it would also fix the weakness of anomalous cognition, which I think is pretty dire as an article. Combine them, source them, add the fact that the mainstream finds them laughable or simply ignores them, I think this will fix several problems at once so is sound reasoning. Guy (Help!) 20:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at the very least MergeThe ground listed for deletion are not in line with Wikipedia policy and conflict with admin rulings * that Wikipedia can legitimately include entries on paranormal phenomona that exist as a belief even if they do not exist as an observable phenomona. It looks as if the only actual valid concern being raise here is WP:V, and I will fix that. By the time that you are reading this, I may already have done so. - perfectblue (talk) 09:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keepper Uncle G and perfectblue. Though the field and I have different views, I think if subjects exist and are notable and verifiable within their field then we should have an article on them. I'll try to patch this article too.--Lenticel ^(talk) 11:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into as-yet uncreated Parapsychology terminology. I agree with Uncle G and others, but would add that there are a number of parapsychology related terminology articles floating around that can be merged into one article. Many of them repeat the same basic information and it's not really necessary. More notable terms like extra-sensory perception and psychokinesis need expanded articles, but less notable terms such as this can do with one article linked from the main parapsychology page. There's no reason to delete them, but there's no reason to have split-off articles at this time. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, or rather Question: Is it alright to create Parapsychology terminology at this time? That wouldn't be considered circumventing an AfD discussion would it? I don't think it would because there's plenty of notable terms to put in it, and it doesn't just concern this term. It might though because it would render rogue articles like this one redundant. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tacit extension

Unreferenced stub article, looks like a dictionary definition, but Google does not lead me to believe that this is a widely-used term. Guy (Help!) 10:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Specialized terminology often has room for expansion to an article beyond a dictionary definition and etymology. Keep for a while, try to get someone to improve it, and if it can't be done then delete per WP:NOT#DICT. About 1,000 Ghits for "Tacit extension" -wikipedia -wiki, so I'd give a very small benefit of the doubt TheBilly (talk) 10:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A quasi-random sampling of the Google results showed that very few were about logic or mathematics; most simply used the words in their ordinary meanings, in colloquial or legal contexts. I'd be surprised if as many as 5% of the total results were about this concept. Admittedly, 5% of 1100 isn't too bad, but it's not great either. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per The Billy. RJC ^Talk 19:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found plenty of usage of this term in the mathematics/logic context when I searched. Not all the Ghits are for that context, some are for the legal context so perhaps the article should deal with that as well. ++Lar: t/c 20:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure it was being used as a specific legal phrase rather than as two separate English words - an extension of something that in this case was tacit? WAS 4.250 (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ merge/delete - possible alternative might be to merge with the relevant projection article, if expansion is or becomes unlikely. Article needs to define the term a bit more precisely/clearly though, and did anybody notice the crazy vandalism going on in the history? Change: I change my "vote" to merge, although on the provision that the definition of this thing can be verified (otherwise, delete without prejudice). I've changed my mind because I took a closer look at the internets and other possible sources of verification/expansion of the article's content and things don't look promising (as others have mentioned). --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete unless both a definition and examples of its use can be properly sourced. I found no sources that did not lead to Awbrey. It may be the term is original with him and has yet to be adopted by the wider logic community. That would not make the terminology invalid; but it would make it an unacceptable neologism for wikipedia. WAS 4.250 (talk) 03:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice toward re-creation. The material is neither sourced nor clear, and I'd just as soon start from a blank page than from this sub-stub. If that happens to make the original author happy, so much the better. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CRGreathouse; this article, as it is, is totally useless and can only be fixed (if so desired) by starting over. But, like WAS, I found no uses in this meaning except in text by the now banned article creator, and so I suspect the article title is a neologism, and the article violates WP:NOR. --Lambiam 09:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I figured out what the article is trying to say, which is a start. If we have a set A as a subset of X, the "tacit extension" of A to $X\times Y$ $X\times Y$ is $A\times Y$ $A\times Y$ . There is no reason that this concept needs to have its own article. If this is indeed a worthwhile term to define at all, I would redirect tacit extension to relation (mathematics) and give a clear definition there. But I am not yet convinced the term is used enough to justify even that. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For example, a search on google books for "tacit extension" mathematics does not yield any uses of the term in this sense, only colloquial uses. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's actually what I was thinking too, when looking at the "definition" provided in the article. If anything, that means it's really not worth mentioning. It almost seems like two words that are just doing their thing separately - we can always extend some set to the largest (or "least committal") superset we know contains it. In fact, we may do so tacitly. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As Carl has pointed out, the article is trying to say that the tacit extension of a subset A of X to X×Y is A×Y. This usage of tacit extension appears to be a coinage of Jon Awbrey which has not found widespread use. Spacepotato (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice unsourced, never heard of it. Could be recreated with same or different meaning if it can be demonstrated that the phrase has currency somewhere as a term of art (rather than just as a nonce term or as two words combined with ordinary English semantics). --Trovatore (talk) 05:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. I fully agree with Trovatore. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources that could be used to show notability or even actual use, per Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. EdJohnston (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Trovatore. Paul August ☎ 04:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 04:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Descriptive science

An unreferenced stub which has been just that since its creation. Appears to be either a dictionary definition or a personal opinion. Guy (Help!) 10:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Seems probable to be a specialized term in philosophy (or similar discipline). Try to get someone to expand it. If no expansion can be made that is more than a dictionary definition and etymology, then delete per WP:NOT#DICT TheBilly (talk) 10:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a quick google confirms the widespread use of this term by the scintific community. Stub status does not make an article any less valid. Viridae ^Talk 22:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, being no more than what is obvious from the title plus lacking references plus lacking context plus being a dictionary definition is what does that. BTW, you're not an AfD regular as far as I know, has Jon canvassed this on WR? Guy (Help!) 22:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't canvassing, more a jibe at you. Feel free to add the standard template to the top however. Viridae ^Talk 22:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and it wasn't Jon. Viridae ^Talk 22:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Makes a change. I blocked another of his socks yesterday. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No, Keep. No, Delete. D'Oh! I Kant Decide! Luv, and do wacka do! Canvass Back Duck (talk) 23:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This ammusing interlude was brought to you by Jon Awbrey. We shall now resume our scheduled programming. Viridae ^Talk 03:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'll add to it. 4.250.168.224 (talk) 02:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, yes the article desperately needs cleanup, but thats no reason to delete it. As matter of fact, we prescriptive science to be written as well. --Reinoutr (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - An important concept in philosophy of science and in just understanding the sciences. I really wish that people who don't know a subject wouldn't try to delete articles without researching the subject. --Lquilter (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sagawa Express S.C.

This is actually a difficult one. The article is well-written, but it's an amateur team with no real secondary sources as far as I can tell. 60-odd hits for the Japanese team name on Google, and 40-odd for the English name. Note that the "Japan Football League" is the third-division league in Japan, not the top-tier competition. Lankiveil (talk) 10:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC) Withdraw nom, as there seems to be a clear Keep consensus. Lankiveil (talk) 11:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Third level champions in a large country like Japan (confirmed by table on www.rsssf.com) seems notable enough to me. - fchd (talk) 10:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - All JFL clubs have articles of similar quality and seems sufficiently notable - Tomperc (talk) 11:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to its article the Japan Football League is generally considered as the top amateur league in Japan although many full-time footballers play in the league. That would make it roughly equivalent to the Conference in England, which is considered to be several levels above the bar for notability of clubs. Let's apply equivalent standards to Japan. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 08:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pragmatic maxim

This reads as a personal essay on Peirce's pragmatic maxim, sourced entirely from one publication. The ton is all wrong ("seven ways of looking at.."), and it lacks any sources independent of the originator of the term. I flagged this for wider attention a while back, but it does not seem to have resulted in any kind of input. A redirect to Peirce or a merger of the small amount of usable text to a new possible article on the logic of Peirce would be fine, but I don't think this should stand as-is. Guy (Help!) 10:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try "First Rule of Reason".
- Susan Haack (1997). "The First Rule of Reason". In Jacqueline Brunning and Paul Forster (ed.). The Rule of Reason: The Philosophy of Charles Sanders Peirce. Toronto: Toronto University Press. pp. 241–261. ISBN 0802078192.
- Sami Pihlström (2004). "Peirce's Place in the Pragmatist Tradition". In Cheryl J. Misak (ed.). The Cambridge Companion to Peirce. Cambridge University Press. p. 48. ISBN 0521579104.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
- Vincent G. Potter (1996). "Foreword". Peirce's Philosophical Perspectives. Fordham Univ Press. pp. xxii. ISBN 0823216160.
- …
- …
Uncle G (talk) 11:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So does that mean it needs to be retitled, then? Guy (Help!) 17:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky question:
- C. J. Misak (1995). "Peirce and the Pragmatic Maxim". Verificationism: Its History and Prospects. Routledge. ISBN 0415125979.
- Juan Fontrodona (2002). Pragmatism and Management Inquiry: Insights from the Thought of Charles S Peirce. Quorum/Greenwood. pp. 2, 36. ISBN 1567205151.
- Olshewsky, T.M. (1983). "Peirce's Pragmatic Maxim". Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society. 19: 199–210.
- Peter Ochs (1998). Peirce, Pragmatism, and the Logic of Scripture. Cambridge University Press. pp. 36, 80. ISBN 0521570417.
- Cheryl J. Misak (2004). "Charles Sanders Peirce". In Cheryl J. Misak (ed.). The Cambridge Companion to Peirce. Cambridge University Press. pp. 2–3. ISBN 0521579104.
- Sami Pihlström (2004). "Peirce's Place in the Pragmatist Tradition". In Cheryl J. Misak (ed.). The Cambridge Companion to Peirce. Cambridge University Press. pp. 38–39. ISBN 0521579104.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
- Donald L. Gelpi (2000). "From Transcendentalism to Pragmatism". Varieties of Transcendental Experience: A Study in Constructive Postmodernism. Liturgical Press. p. 252. ISBN 0814659497.
It looks like the article is conflating the First Rule of Reason and the Pragmatic Maxim. The first quotation in the article is the Rule. The third is the Maxim. Say hello to all the nice people at Wikipedia:WikiProject philosophy, who (I hope.) are just joining us. Uncle G (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep and improve or merge and redirect Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC) the subject is a worthy one for the wikipedia, we just need to decide how it is portrayed.[reply]
Keep - add to if needed, but the current content is good and should be kept WAS 4.250 (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it needs work, but it is worthy of a standalone article. Deletion would be overkill. Cyclone77 (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The Placebo Effect (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ifyoulove.net

non notable website Christoph StSmith (talk) 09:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Borderline WP:CSD#G11 as platant pomp and advertising for the site. Also barely asserts any notability. Pedro : Chat 10:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:WEB. Lankiveil (talk) 10:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, fails WP:WEB, borderline spam. The only contributions from the user who created the article seem to be the creation of the article and adding references to the site in other articles. -- Redfarmer (talk) 10:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I (the writer of the initial article) don't believe it qualifies as spam, and would particularly like to draw attention to the few before me who have mentioend that it is 'borderline.' Also, just a bit of clarification (in response to Redfarmer), I took a quick look at the History, and there's one IP that added a modification/reference, which was not me. Doing a WhoIS on the IP shows it is a Canadian IP. Just wanted to clarify. Cheers! (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 02:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:WEB - use of some of the language feels like advertising; as in "Ifyoulove.net is unique.." Kavanagh21 (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll fix up the language if you feel it's like advertising. Can I ask for a little more time to clean it up? -- LoremIpsumDolorSitAmet (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - To be honest, I don't think that, even with rewriting, it could be argued that this site passes WP:WEB; sorry, but personally I'm going to stick with Delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kavanagh21 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fluc

non-notable website Christoph StSmith (talk) 09:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, I originally speedied this, but agreed to let the creator have a little bit more time when he contested the speedy and pledged to find some more reliable sources. That's been done to a degree, but most of the mentions are trivial and minor. Regretfully think it's probably not a notable enough subject yet. Lankiveil (talk) 10:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy delete Notability isn't asserted. Only external links with mentions of this site are provided and those are blogs, which are not acceptable sources per WP:SPS TheBilly (talk) 10:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 02:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guys, I just thought considering the coverage from well known and established blogs - that these were considered pretty good sources. There are countless other websites on wikipedia, which haven't been deleted, and yet have much less credible sources than this one. Im only new to wikipedia - but if 5 well-known and reputable blogs with >100K of readers isn't notable. I don't know what is. AJThomasScott (talk) 04:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caramel (porn star)

Can't figure out her notability. Tag set since October 2007. Vinh1313 (talk) 09:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD A7. Most pornographic actors fail even under the old WP:PORNBIO. Time to clean house TheBilly (talk) 09:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a notable actor. Lankiveil (talk) 10:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, coverage appears to be trivial, no awards.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per HisSpaceResearch. Redfarmer (talk) 12:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. TGreenburgPR (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the old WP:PORNBIO. It set a minimum of 100 films. 150 films is well above that criteria. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The old WP:PORNBIO guideline rejected the X-number-of-films test in early 2007. It is too easy to run up a porn film count. WP:BIO is working consensus now, and it is easier on porn stars than WP:PORNBIO was. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Neıl ☎ 09:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~The result was Delete (non-admin closure) --Strothra (talk) 05:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Reopen until an admin can delete. Non-admins should not close AFDs as delete since they don't have the mop to follow through. --Dhartung | Talk 08:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of oxymora

AfDs for this article:

While poking about the wiki, I came across this "article," which, unfortunately, does not appear to be up to our standards. It's unsourced, and can also be construed as original research. In addition, it doesn't appear to be of encyclopedic nature. Please note that this is not a knock on the contributors to this article, whose time and efforts are certainly appreciated, albeit just a bit off with regards to this particular article. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 09:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, also, you may want to give this a peek before joining the discussion, as this article had previously been discussed as a candidate for deletion back in March 2005. Cheers gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 09:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This list has always had an unfortunate tendency of growing in uncontrolled directions through ill-considered and joke additions. Not worth the trouble. Note: This used to be a problem already when it was not a list but still part of Oxymoron, so I'll forestall a likely suggestion and say explicitly: Don't merge back. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not: A dictionary, usage guide, or indiscriminate collection of information TheBilly (talk) 09:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, any good examples can be added to Oxymoron when sources accompany the oxymoron, demonstrating that it is actual in use and considered to be an oxymoron. John Vandenberg (talk) 10:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, besides the concerns listed above, I'm more than a bit concern about the joke section, which lists Microsoft Works as a joke oxymoron without listing any sources to it actually being used in that way. -- Redfarmer (talk) 11:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced trivia and POV-pushing nonsense. Snalwibma (talk) 11:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone, unsourced original research, fails WP:NOT and possibly WP:NPOV as well as WP:V. It must go.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete amusing but not encyclopedic; WP:OR. JJL (talk) 12:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with regret ("this page is seriously funny.") Not a single source has been provided for any of the material in this article, despite request for same. This page is a target for subjectively funny "oxymora" being added which make political, social etc. statements, such as "happily married". There is no well-defined criterion for inclusion or exclusion, and no verifiable criterion for putting an example in one section or another of the page. In the previous AfD, dividing the article into sections was viewed as an improvement; but as I see it, it increases the requirement for verification: we would need to be able to verify not only that something belongs on this page, but that it meets the criteria of a particular section of the page. Such well-specified verification is unlikely to be found. A limited number of good examples (not an unlimited number, not "any good examples" as John Vandenberg says) can be included in the Oxymoron article for illustrative purposes, and that will provide most of the value of this page -- the huge number of examples is not needed for either encyclopedic or entertainment value. Sorry. Clarification: Don't merge back, per Fut.Perf.; All the same problems would exist if a list were included at that page. Examples at that page should be included within paragraphs. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. WP:OR, and maybe WP:SNOW would help out now. Malinaccier (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in Keeping with wikipedia principles, per above. Mandsford (talk) 04:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. If I see the potential of an article being good, then if we delete it, who's going to improve it? All Wikipedia articles are in the process of becoming good, which everyone knows, so it isn't a problem and shouldn't be an embarrassment. The fact that I'm the first "Keep" makes me suspect this is a stealth delete and that the potential supporters haven't been notified, which is rude and nasty. Korky Day (talk) 23:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith. I think normally notification is done by placing the AfD tag on the article. I did an extra dummy edit so it would be clear in the edit summary that the page is being considered for deletion. In response to your vote, I've placed a notice at Talk:Oxymoron about this proposed deletion. Is there anyone else who ought to be notified, and if so, who? --Coppertwig (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing more than a list of perceived oxymora, sometimes for possible comic effect or to make a point. As it stands, 'tis indeed rife with WP:OR and WP:POV violations, and additions done to tweak the noses of certain sectors of the populace (Compassionate conservative, military intelligence, Christian Science, etc) to me reek of WP:POINT. That being said, I do not find the article itself unencyclopedic per se, altho' in its current condition it's definitely indiscriminate. Oh, and to the user who sicced the BJBot on me to inform me of the AfD on this article I once contributed to: Thank you; most considerate. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 08:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 04:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cathy Barry

AfDs for this article:

~~Lack of notability flunks wp:bio Vinh1313 (talk) 09:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)~~ Notability is established. Vinh1313 (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just another porn actor that fails WP:BIO. Would say speedy it per CSD A7 but she survived a past nomination with no consensus TheBilly (talk) 10:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a non-notable porn star. Lankiveil (talk) 10:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep, I'm a little concerned that she may not seem notable because the article is badly written. She made a guest appearance as herself on Skins, implying she's at least somewhat well known in her own right if a mainstream TV show had her on as herself. -- Redfarmer (talk) 11:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)]][reply]

OK, I actually decided to do some research on this one and found out she's quite well known in Britain. She won a 2007 Lifetime Achievement Award at the UK Adult Film Awards, a 2007 Best Female Actress award from the Erotic Trade Only show (a British industry awards show for adult films), and her film, The Affair, won the Best DVD Award from the 2006 ETO show. With all those things coupled and her appearance on Skins, I think that makes her notable, since she satisfies criteria one of WP:PORNBIO: "Has won or been a serious nominee for a well-known award." Note that, while these awards don't have articles of their own yet, they are apparently well known as I got numerous Ghits. Redfarmer (talk) 12:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and kudos to Redfarmer for digging up the awards! Tabercil (talk) 13:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as well-known in Britain and Europe, including through appearances outside porn. Keresaspa (talk) 14:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep definitely notable in the UK. RMHED (talk) 15:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable beyond her genre in the UK with considerable media exposure (pun intended). 23skidoo (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, those references are solid. Seems notable.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is in the top 20,000 on IMBD Pro, which asserts notability. Article needs to be expanded. TGreenburgPR (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus --JForget 00:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Envy (pornstar)

Notability not established. Unreferenced. Vinh1313 (talk) 09:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD A7. Just another porn actor that fails WP:BIO —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBilly (talk • contribs) 10:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No awards and no evidence of substantial non-trivial third-party coverage.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and HisSpaceResearch. Redfarmer (talk) 12:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, lack of notibility not established in nomination for deletion. Also, I revised the article, added sources, and added discussion on the talk page. Please re-vote based on changed article. Fredsmith2 (talk) 07:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just a reminder that according to WP:BIO, notability is presumed for a pornographic actress when one of the following is met:

Has won or been a serious nominee for a well-known award, such as those listed in Category:Adult movie awards or Category:Film awards or from a major pornographic magazine, such as Penthouse, Playboy, or Playgirl, as well as their counterparts in other pornography genres.
Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography, or starring in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature.
Has been featured multiple times in mainstream media.Vinh1313 (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And as another reminder, here's the header to that policy: "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Fredsmith2 (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately, her stage name is such a common word, that searching for sources about her is extremely difficult. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per award nom. Epbr123 (talk) 18:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - these "awards" seem to be easier to come by than graduation certificates. Deb (talk) 12:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Starred in 214 films? That is notable. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete JForget 00:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Ferrari (pornstar)

Notability unverified. WP:BIO criteria not satisfied. Vinh1313 (talk) 09:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD A7. Just another porn actor that fails WP:BIO TheBilly (talk) 10:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no awards, no substantial coverage.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can't find any substantial coverage on her other than her own web site and web sites selling her videos. Redfarmer (talk) 12:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. JJL (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Emmeria

Nominating because it is the same unsourced material that is just... cruft. Nominating as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estovakia, similar topic revolving Ace Combat 6 by Namco Bandai. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 08:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, zero notability in the real world. Lankiveil (talk) 10:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete- non-Notable. Springnuts (talk) 12:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:N. Macy's 123 review me 20:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An admirable effort that is doomed to fail because of the lack of reliable sources. User:Krator (t c) 01:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is only a month old and apprently the creator is still working on it. We should probably help him, rather than discourage him. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is extremely unlikely that this article could ever be verifiable; it is original research Gwernol 03:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure how WikiProject Videogames does things, but I'd think that since the gameplay is the only way to verify this subject's material, it would be considered original research, as I'm sure the full plot of the game would not be leaked by NBGI because it would lose the point of beating out the game if you already know how it ends. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, I would advise everyone here to make a decision whether or not to delete the Estovakia article (as it is pure rubbish in my opinion). Please comment here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estovakia. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unsourced and, I believe, unsourceable (I deem it very unlikely that there will ever exist reliable books or papers about this particular fictional place). Goochelaar (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per some improvements. Bearian (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep considering the increasing amount written about games, i would not be prepared to say that this is usurcable.It does not take a whole book or an academic paper to be a sufficient source for notability. DGG (talk) 04:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - will change my mind if I see some independent, non-trivial, reliable coverage. Marasmusine (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the fact that it's game content does not automatically justify deletion (notability is only a guideline anyway, and therefore isn't really enough to justify deletion on its own) but I don't see anything here that couldn't be covered by a paragraph in the Ace Combat 6 article. Cynical (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Merge Suggesting a merge into Nations of Ace Combat. Apparently another editor has supplied a pretty good list of nations in the Ace Combat series. If this article's information can be verified, I suggest merging the information there instead. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 10:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No out-of-universe content, no evidence of real-world notability. There is no reason this can't be adequately covered in the article about the game. Pagra shtak 16:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Quasar Project (band)

Seemingly non-notable band. Speedy declined by an admin on the basis that there is assertion (though i disagree – "releasing a self-titled EP" is not an assertion of notability, endless non-notables have done that) so here we are. tomasz. 08:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil (talk) 10:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy delete. No assertion of notability. I don't know how anyone can construe "released a self-titled EP" as an assertion of notability. That's not in WP:BAND anywhere. Having a record doesn't mean anythng, as anyone can self-publish or publish on a no-name label. WP:BAND clearly lays out requirements that they publish on a "major label or one of the more important indie labels", and it requires two or more releases (read point 5 carefully), so one EP undeniably fails here, and they don't pass on any of the other criteria TheBilly (talk) 10:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BAND doesn't apply to WP:CSD#A7. CSD A7 dictates that something must have no assertion of notability whatsoever and applies to speedy deletion only; the music notability guidelines state what consensus generally accepts is the standard for inclusion in normal deletion discussions. WP:CSD#A7 operates outside any notability guideline whatsoever, as the bar is "an assertion of notability", not "what guidelines say is notable". Daniel 10:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I realize this, and I can read. However, "released a self-titled EP" doesn't sound like an assertion of notability. That sounds like something that is very open to interpretation, so I'd call it "a vague implication of notability" TheBilly (talk) 11:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - "[A] vague implication of notability" is sufficient to avoid WP:CSD#A7 as written :) Daniel 11:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I must be the only one who thinks that "assertion" and "implication" are different words. The article doesn't argue that they are important because they have a release; it mentions they have a release, and then it's up to the reader to construe that as important, depending on whether you consider self-published releases important or not (wikipedia doesn't). "influential", "popular", "groundbreaking", "commercially successful", "innovative", would be assertions of importance. But, whatever, this is getting off-topic and polluting the debate which will turn out Delete anyway, just not speedy. For further nitpicking and abuse of the English language, please feel free to bring this to my talk page :) :) :) TheBilly (talk) 11:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - But "released a self-titled EP" is still neither such an assertion nor even such a vague implication. i could record four cover songs on my computer tonight, burn it to a CD tomorrow and give it to someone Saturday. This would be a self-titled EP. i would still be completely non-notable per WP:BAND and the fact that i had recorded this self-titled EP would not assert anything to the contrary. tomasz. 15:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, could speedy delete this without much harm. Non-notable.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - not notable. Funeral 14:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Estovakia

Unsourced, but I know this comes from Ace Combat 6 by NBGI (Namco Bandai). This article needs to be completely rewritten, as it is doing nothing but writing fiction on a fictitious country. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 08:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Associated AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of Emmeria. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 09:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reasons I noted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of Emmeria: this is inherently unverifiable, so its original research that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. There are plenty of places on the web where this information can be placed, Wikipedia is not one of them. Gwernol 03:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as completely lacking both context and assertion of notability. Goochelaar (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sourced and verifiable information, and give editors time to expand per these suggestions. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please take a closer look at articles before you vote keep. True, there is one citation in the article, but it is to a wiki, which is definitely not a reliable source. The article should therefore be considered unsourced. Pagra shtak 17:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have looked it over, though: [22] and [23]. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't understand what that response is supposed to mean. Per WP:SPS, Wikis are not reliable sources: "For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources" TheBilly (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm also confused. I said that there is one reference, which is to a wiki, then you provided the diff that confirmed my statement. Pagra shtak 16:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable secondary sources, no assertion of notability, no real-world content. Pagra shtak 17:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reason as the other one; notability reasons (which, being based on a guideline aren't really enough to justify deletion) aside, there is simply not any content here that justifies a separate article from Ace Combat 6. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cynical (talk • contribs) 15:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possible Merge Suggesting a merge into Nations of Ace Combat. Apparently another editor has supplied a pretty good list of nations in the Ace Combat series. If this article's information can be verified, I suggest merging the information there instead. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 10:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Brianga per CSD G1 (patent nonsense). --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bangajhong

Another nonsense article Alloranleon (talk) 08:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Nonsense: speediable. So tagged. tomasz. 08:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted by User:Uncle G. Non-admin closure. Lankiveil (talk) 10:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sankar nair

Nonsense article Alloranleon (talk) 08:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Recreation of recently speedy deleted page (I was confused when this showed up on my watchlist with "AFD"; I thought I just got rid of it!). As for the page content itself, it qualifies for speedy per CSD A7 TheBilly (talk) 08:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Completely agree with TheBilly and nom as obvious and patent nonsense. This is a no-brainer. Suggest WP:SNOW speedy delete to mitigate drain on editors time and energy. — Becksguy (talk) 09:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as vandalism, disruption, and a bogus copy-and-paste "move". Neverneutral (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another account of DavidYork71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Uncle G (talk) 10:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 denial

WP:OR, WP:POVFORK of 9/11 Truth Movement. While the view has merit, WP:SNOW applies. Weregerbil (talk) 08:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Changed my mind... I stand by what I wrote below about the similarities to Holocaust denial. However, if it's just a content fork with no clear plan to differentiate it from the original article then this was done in the wrong way (i.e. via a copy-and-paste move) rather than by a Requested Move proposal. The place for this discussion is not AFD as I insisted earlier but rather as part of a Requested Move proposal. --Richard (talk) 09:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There IS a requested move. Go look. And there has been a renaming discussion - see Talk:9/11_Truth_Movement#Retitling which has concluded with the outcome: retitle 9/11 Truth Movement to 9/11 denialNeverneutral (talk)

Speedy delete The view has no merit. Like you said, POVFORK, but also an attack. This is a copy of an existing page 9/11 truth movement, reworded to be disparaging to those considered part of the group "9/11 truth movement". Read the articles side by side. The user simply made small wording changes, disparaging this group as "denialists". I have no strong feelings about this or that 9/11 page, I merely saw +52,654 in the recent changes. When someone creates a 50K page out of nowhere, a reasonable person like myself tends to give it more than a cursory glance, and realize "golly gee whiz, I think maybe, just maybe, this isn't a legitimate page at all". It's not an "attempt at a neutral article", because it sprung up out of nowhere, with POV-based wording changes TheBilly (talk) 08:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is no more an 'attack' than Holocaust denial is an attack on Holocaust deniers. If you find the the article lacking NPOV in some aspects then freely accept the invitation to remedy it. But don't just smack down those who are bold enough to develop some distinguished content in the encyclopedia. And don't just reactively act to kill and suppress what emotionally you feel you don't like and can't control.Neverneutral (talk)
Comment - Reserving judgment for now, this comment simply presents my perspective on this issue. I disagree with Weregerbil that WP:SNOW applies.

It's the height of arrogance to say something is WP:SNOW -before- there have even been any votes on it. If that was the case then why have others come out here admitting that the Holocaust denial analogy has at least some persuasive merit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neverneutral (talk • contribs)

TheBilly's reasoning about 50K articles not reasonably appearing out of nowhere is valid. Clearly, Wikipedia should not have two pages with nearly identical content. The reason that I denied the speedy delete request originally was that I was not aware of the other page. However, after being advised of the existence of the other page, I still felt that it was not obvious which page title was NPOV and which was POV. Is it NPOV to assert that there is a 9/11 Truth Movement and POV to assert that this is really 9/11 denialism? If so, then why do we have an article called Holocaust denial? Why not call it Holocaust Truth Movement or some such title? At some point, Wikipedia's NPOV stance has to avoid giving a POV undue weight and reflect the consensus of scholarly opinion. That's why we have an article titled Holocaust denial which documents the phenomenon which exists even if the arguments of the Holocaust denialists are not generally accepted as valid. --Richard (talk) 08:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So it starts as 50k. So what. By critical evaluation it subsequently gets larger or smaller depending on what contributors coming by essentially must stay or must go. And the only reason it comes on the scene at first blush as rather large and with some content in common with the 'truth' article is that i'd made quite a few changes but then I saved it while I had to answer the phone and before I came back and made quite a few more changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neverneutral (talk • contribs)

Well, the reason I disgareed with you wasn't over the POV-nature of the article. I wouldn't try to delete Holocuast Denial, and I didn't try to delete 9/11 truth movement. I don't have a problem with those articles. They have a long history of a completely different nature, and any content and neutrality problems should be progressively worked on. The reason this article caught my attention was its highly suspicious nature, and the reason I nominated it for speedy deletion (which I would never think appropriate for "Holocaust Denial" or "9/11 truth movement") was not that it was non-neutral, but that it was non-neutral and part of an attack. If "denialist" isn't dramatic enough, then replace it in your mind with other accusations like "defeatist", "pinko commie", and so on. It seems clear that the term "denialist" was used throughout this new, slightly modified version as a politically polarized disparaging term like "liberal pansy" or "conservative nutjob". Unlike articles about abstract ideas or general classifications about beliefs, however, (liberl vs conservative, any given religion, etc), this is about a specific group (although apparently only loosely organized), and so since it was targeting a group with disparaging language, it seems to be an attack TheBilly (talk) 09:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- 'Denial' as a concept is not perjorative and you know that very well because we have Holocaust denial to cover people putting out false stories about the deaths of millions of people in Europe in WW2. Very unworthy also from that point on for you to be putting these other epithets in my mouth ('pinko', 'pansy', 'nutjob'). The article is about the acknowledged phenomena of 9/11 denial, not any other imaginative epithet you want to dream up.Neverneutral (talk) 10:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fork / copy of 9/11 Truth Movement. SQL^{Query me!} 08:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No. There is difference in the focus and terminology of it content.Neverneutral (talk) 10:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, seems like a very clear POV fork.P4k (talk) 09:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete because it's a copy pasted text from 9/11 Truth Movement with changing words from truth to denial (and other similar words). It's a biased POV from the creator. At first, (s)he tried to create the fork 9/11 denialism article, which I redirected to "9/11 Truth Movement" and I asked him/her to file a request at WP:RM if (s)he wished to change the article name. (S)he did and the request is still there at this time, while the article has been speedy deleted "(CSD G6: Housekeeping revert copy/paste page-move vandalism)". So this article is a re-created one and is still valid for CSD G6. Dekisugi (talk) 09:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No need to delete We have concluded a renaming discussion on the talkpage of 9/11 Truth movement and the outcome has been the recommendation (by at least 2-1 margin) that we will rename it as 9/11 denial. 9/11 denial is a real and acknowledged phenomena. Just imagine you were one of the families of the 3000 people who died and people went about trying to say that, effectively, they died for a lie. And you're all-too-speedy to try and stifle this awareness because substantial work has been done which distinguishes the content and focus of this article from that of the misnamed "truth movement". Seriously show some respect for the dead and have a look at yourself people. Deleting this and giving the opportunity and precedent for others to reframe/retitle Holocaust denial as the Holocaust Truth Movement. Is that what you are about?Neverneutral (talk) 10:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should give the discussion more than a day before suggesting that it's been "concluded."P4k (talk) 10:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kulaxingu Kambamjiji

Great lack of notability; Google search turned up only one obscure result. Alloranleon (talk) 08:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep king of a kingdom in Angola and an active politician. Jose João (talk) 08:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if and only if it can be established by reference to at least two reliable verifiable sources that

he's a King (ie an hereditary royal head of a non-trivial traditional political or administrative unit)
his name is spelt in a usual fashion for speakers of the English language

Alice^✉ 08:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete per WP:V - the official policy which overrides the notability guideline. Only one source - which is not enough for an encyclopedia article. His name turns up nothing in Google, Google Books, Google Scholar, Google News etcetera. What is he the king of anyway? The article doesn't explain that at all, and it doesn't have an article. Could be sly bogus references and a hoax, or might not be. But WP:V remains policy, so this can't stick around in its current state.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I'm assuming the references are legit now. It's indeed true that WP:BIAS particularly applies to subjects relating to a place like Angola - third-world, non-English speaking.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete same reason as User:HisSpaceResearch. There is only one hit of the subject on Google, while the place Baixa de Kessenge doesn't even have one hit! Stephenchou0722 (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How many kingdoms are there in Angola anyway? It doesn't say in the Wikipedia article on Angola. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Angola article kind of sucks (my bad). There really arent any kingdoms any more but back in the day there were a whole bunch. Jose João (talk) 05:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Comment I have changed my view due to some new info I found. Firstly, according to the cited source, it is actually King Kulaxingu, not Kambamjiji (that being the first name). Secondly, I have just found a reference to a King Kambamba Kulaxingo of Baixa de Cassanje, who died in January 2006, in an announcement on the UK Angola Embassy website. Based on these facts, there seem to be a chance that King Kambamba Kulaxingo is the same person as King Kambamjiji Kulaxingu. As a result, it would seem wise to further investigate the matter before deleting the article, as there might be more references on the subject. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 03:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V, as well. The single reference in that book is too fleeting and obscure. Maybe they simply transcribed his name in a non-standard way and that's why we can't find anything more about him. But it's not a good idea to have an article for that one reference (other people could copy Wikipedia and confuse the situation even more). • Anakin ^{(contribs • complaints)} 13:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based both on the (admittedly limited) sources found so far and on the likelihood of additional sources existing, even if these sources are not readily accessible by most Wikipedia editors. I think this kind of thing is one of the reasons WP:BIAS exists. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepHow many times do we have to go over this? Google is not an indicator of notability. Angola is neither Anglophone nor on the continents of Europe, Australia or North America, making it significantly less likely to have large internet resources. It has sources and theoretically could have more if we look a bit harder onto non-internet texts.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 15:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No real consensus, Keep -- jj137 ^♠ 02:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Trips

This article asserts no notability through reliable sourcing, and as such is just plot repetition of the occurances of the virus in various Steven King novels. It is therefore duplicative and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 07:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- "Captain Trips" is a term that is in fairly common usage. I believe that Wikipedia should be a place where someone can come to find the meaning of such a term. There is (essentially) no limit on the size to which Wikipedia can grow; if we can afford to have articles about anime characters, we can afford to have an article about Captain Trips. -- Atlant (talk) 13:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete should be covered either in a King wiki or in article on the entire Dark Tower story arc. Ridernyc (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- It's a main plot feature in The Stand as well; this cross-series usage is one of the reasons it has a free-standing article. -- Atlant (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's a plot device used in at least three of King's works and wouldn't be adequately covered in any one of the individual articles. There may be issues with some minor WP:OR, but that's fixable. Matt Deres (talk) 15:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Nice to see the Pokémon test is still alive, now using anime instead. Might have to tweak that a little. Redirect to The Stand. Hiding T 15:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Aside from the redirect, I'm going to also suggest delete based on WP:PLOT. Either that or start sourcing the article to page numbers and the like. Yes, we can source that it exists. We can source plot detail. What else can we source? If there's nothing else, it has to go. Surely Stephen King has discussed this in interview and we can improve the article with stuff from that? If so, let's do it. Hiding T 10:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per verfiability and real world notability. It appears in a major novel and miniseries and can be verified through reliable sources. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This subject is referenced in enough different works that it is notable, and wouldn't fit neatly into an existing article because of the need to be mentioned in the others. It is a major plot element in several important novels and short stories, in a well-known miniseries, and has been referenced in pop culture (example: the Anthrax song "Among the Living")Ghost of starman (talk) 02:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment: also, it's reasonable to assume that somebody might search for the meaning of the phrase "captain Trips", and Wikipedia should provide that information to them. Wikipedia is not paper, and this article is obviously useful and informative about the subject. Ghost of starman (talk) 02:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The Placebo Effect (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hate Plague

This article asserts no notability through reliable sourcing, and as such is just an in-universe plot repetition of various episodes of the Transformers cartoon. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 07:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete! - Please, please. Completely non-notable, plot device used in a single (two-parter, granted) episode of Transformers. VigilancePrime (talk) 07:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, don't merge. Apart from being just plain stupid, plot renarrations of copyrighted fiction, when not used to support encyclopedic analysis in a way justified by fair use, are a breach of our non-free content policies and potential copyright violations. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable outside of the Transformers univers. Should not be merged as per user above me. Lankiveil (talk) 10:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: Let this page stay. We need this as one of the fictional diseases listed here. For all we know, it's Infection List is incomplete. Rtkat3 (talk) 12:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 15:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plexus Systems, Inc.

Article created by company's marketing manager, seems non-notable. Jfire (talk) 06:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but cleanup; Google News turns up a few references, one from CNN Money (covers some information about the company as part of the article), Forbes.com has mention of them, and others. Seems to pass WP:CORP, although, I may be viewing these two references (others are there, I haven't looked at the half of them yet) slightly different than the guideline. If anyone else cares to join in, here is the Google News search. Aeternitas827 (talk) 06:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those are press releases from PRNewswire, most likely written by the same employee that wrote the article. Jfire (talk) 06:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For future reference, folks, beware anything that appears in a major mag but originated from PR Newswire. As Jfire so eloquently pointed out, they are written by internal sources with an intent to be positive or marketing spin. I know this because I supply data and information to my company's folks who write them :) Ψν^Psi_nu 14:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The company has won a statewide industry award[24] and its female president is in the "top 100" women in the auto industry, but that doesn't seem sufficient without any independent in-depth coverage. As noted, much of the search result is press releases or trivial mentions. --Dhartung | Talk 21:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 02:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per numerous improvements I just made based on the above discussion. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the effort GRdC, but it just doesn't look like it meets the bar set by WP:N of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Of the references, #3 is a blog (specifically excluded by WP:V) and #4-5 are company press releases (specifically excluded by WP:CORP). That leaves #1 and 2, short blurbs in industry rags (and #2 is secondhand). IMO that falls short of notability, and I'm left with the fact that this is little else but self-promotion. Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Jfire (talk) 05:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should note the evidence for COI: article created by User:KimHayward, only contribs this article and some other links to the article/company, according to her LinkedIn profile, "SEO Marketing Manager at Plexus Systems, Inc.", job duty "to increase the visibility of Plexus Online on the web." Jfire (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FSG Südkreis

The team plays only in 6th German division. It is almost an amateur team. The article is also deleted in German, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese wikipedia. Why should we keep it? Tosqueira (talk) 05:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Canley (talk) 05:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N (no subject coverage by independent primary sources, i.e. different than the club website). --Angelo (talk) 08:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. Woody (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The Placebo Effect (talk) 17:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SCAR (programming language)

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 single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

AfDs for this article:

Been some time since the prev AfD which resulted in no consensus.

I bring this issue up again because I believe that this program has no notability outside of RuneScape cheating (which, again, is not particularly notable in and of it self)

The claim that SCAR has uses outside of RuneScape is heavily debatable. "SCAR programming" has 3 hits on Google News, none of which appear to have anything to do with the program. The claim of number of users and usability (and how it gets people into programming) are unverifiable and irrelevant respectively. The getting people into programming argument could be made for a number of languages, HTML, JS, PHP, BASIC, shell, etc. all could be used to introduce someone to basic programming theory, i.e., if-then-else, loops.

In addition, the page lacks reliable sources to establish notability.

Although I am not particularly familiar with the SCAR CDE, nor Pascal, I would like to bring up what StephenP123 (talk · contribs) said in this diff.

I'd also like to bring up this quote:

SCAR's syntax and structure lie very close to that of its parent language, Pascal. A major difference in its use is that it is almost necessary to use routines from an inbuilt library.

SCAR appears to ~~potentially~~ (never mind "potentially", it says so in the first paragraph!) just be Pascal with a very nice internal library for RS cheating. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 04:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 04:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looking for something to satisfy the WP:N guidelines, I tried gsearch for "+SCAR +pascal -forum". Relevant hits run out after about page 4; nothing substantial from an independent, reliable source. Unless it's discussed in some programming journal somewhere, this one doesn't meet the notability threshold. Marasmusine (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cheating on Runescape is not notable in our universe. Malinaccier (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks any evidence of notability.--Seriousspender (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close, wrong venue. I would have taken this to WP:IFD, but the image in question already has a G7 tag on it (not placed by me). Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Xbox logo.png

I'm not sure if I'm supposed to post this here, but here goes. I uploaded this image for use in a userbox before I was made aware of the poicy against doing that with non-free images. I, as the creator of this page, am requesting that it be immediately deleted. Thingg (talk) 04:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (The merge suggestion can be addressed via talk page discussions, and using Template:merge). JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International Worship in English

Article tagged for CSD because of notability concerns. I deleted the article per CSD A7, but received a request to undelete the article for a procedural AFD, which I complied with, hence this AFD. I personally will remain neutral on the subject. Keilana^talk_(recall) 04:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, It asserts no notability but there are seemingly reliable sources. I honestly don't know about this one. I think I'll go with delete, just because the article itself doesn't assert notability. Just because it's Korean but in English doesn't make it suitable for inclusion. 04:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC) Change to keep, per Noroton below. It does have sources, and while it doesn't currently assert notability, it could in the future. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 04:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:N and WP:ORG with mulitple, reliable, independent sources. This is good enough even for a Wikipedia article about even a local chapter of a larger organization. Not much of an article now, but that may change and that's not deletion criteria. Perhaps the nominator could expand on notability objections. Assertion of notability is implicit when multiple sources are used.Noroton (talk) 04:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with Total Project Complete Basically, Kyung-Chik Han was awarded the 1992 Templeton Prize for founding Young Nak Presbyterian Church. And Bill Majors, an American missionary to Seoul, was made an Honorary Citizen of Seoul for creating an English ministry, International Worship in English, at Young Nak Presbyterian Church, an effort that was the final fruit of Han's achievement. We have two notable men, two notable accomplishments, and one vision. Han was born in Korea and studied in the US and Korea. Majors was born in the US and studied in the US and Korea. Both men worked together to shape a notable two-pronged organization that bridges countries and continents. Over the last ten days, I've tried to make the firm beginnings of four articles that tell this entire story, complete with all the necessary sources that prove both accuracy and notability. I apologize if I've been short or gruff with anyone, but I get upset when people seem to doubt my respect for the integrity of Wikipedia; I've tried my best to make articles that meet its ideals of accurate and important information. Davidabram (talk) 09:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Noroton and WP:ORG. In the interest of disclosure, there is a related AfD for Bill Majors, the founder of this Org. located here. Keeper | 76 15:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Young Nak Presbyterian Church. The church is notable, but I don't think three separate articles are needed. -- Dougie WII (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicktoons: Power of the Chosen Ones

Prod removed. Google's got nothing, no WP:RS so fails WP:CRYSTAL. Shawis (talk) 04:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per WP:CBALL. Once it comes out, let's see how it is. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 04:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the fact that the only ref (if the link is a reference) is totally unrelated. I'm sure we can come up with a much better article after (or if) the game comes out. -anabus_maximus (Talk to me) 05:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most likely a hoax, no reliable sources showing up in a search (in fact I get three - WP, a WP bot page which seems to have identified this as a problem article and something called 'wikirage', whatever the hell that's supposed to be). A lot of Nickelodeon's games seem to be published by THQ, a great big sumo of a publisher, very much doubt a genuine release would slip anywhere even close without someone reporting on it. Someone another (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:HOAX and there is no sources. Macy's 123 review me 20:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:CRYSTAL, wait until it comes out. Malinaccier (talk) 23:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definite hoax. We'll never see a Cartoon Network/Nick crossover game as this article claims, period. Nate · (chatter) 23:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally unverifiable, could close this per WP:SNOW.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Already deleted. Bduke (talk) 07:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J Keezy

Another Neologism! That's two tonight! J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 03:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Speedy Delete, Attack or Nonsensical I speedied it, they put it back, it got AfD'd before I noticed it again. It isn't a neologism - it's just someone screwing around. Ψν^Psi_nu 03:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So now it's something he made up one day. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 04:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - That day being today. Twice now. Ψν^Psi_nu 04:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - The creator of a page cannot contest a speedy deletion and should not remove the warning. --neonwhite user page talk 05:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This article is mostly a biography of one of the author's non-notable teenage acquaintances. If the article were intended to focus on Mr. Keezy's name as a neologism, the author would have taken the time to provide a definition for it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Result was Delete. --VS ^talk 05:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Game

Neologism, I've heard the phrase, but this article is basically just a story. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 03:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Somehow I suspect that the article creator User:Lawtonkid04 corresponds with K.M.L. in the article-story-thing, while A.E.V. is probably some associate who, apparently, is not as game as K.M.L. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 04:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Surely there must be reason to speedy delete that nonsense. --Mud4t (talk) 06:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 09:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm game is worth a dicdef at best. This nonsense (and it is nonsense, since I have used the phrase for much longer than either of these) must go. Emeraude (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poorly written, unsourced, and apparently incorrect Carlyle 3 Carlyle3 Contributions/Carlyle 3
- How so? Do we have a reliable source saying A.E.V is more game then K.M.L? :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by J-stan (talk • contribs) 17:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Possibly Speedy as G1. Malinaccier (talk) 23:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete as patent nonsense Sudoku424 (talk) 03:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as patent nonsense. At best. Greswik (talk) 11:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SSS delete - that stands for strong, speedy, and snowball delete all in one. I just made that acronym up on the spot (although I have used the term "strong, speedy and snowball delete" before) but it's useful this kind of thing that obviously doesn't belong in the encyclopedia for any reason whatsoever (strong delete) yet doesn't quite meet any of the speedy deletion criteria, but almost does, (so we may as well apply WP:SNOW). The text here is almost totally incoherent, so a G1 nonsense tag is going on the page.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snowball Keep - non-admin closure - Peripitus (Talk) 00:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Doyle

Contested CSD for notability. He was involved in Australian politics, but I'm not sure if his level of involvement makes him notable. Strictly a procedural nomination, I have no preference due to my unfamiliarity with the subject. Keilana^talk_(recall) 03:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 04:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was a member of the Victorian Legislative Assembly, which is notable enough for me... although the notability of Australian state politicians is not, as far as I know, as clear-cut as that of federal MPs or Senators. Most of the article seems to be sourced from here, and that page lists several references such as Who's Who in Australia 1968-1983 and a 1978 book called Notable Australians. It looks like there's enough verifiable information to sustain a decent article in any case. --Canley (talk) 04:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep much the same as Canley. From WP:BIO "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards: Politicians who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature". Also as a Catholic in the Liberal Party in the 1960s he would be one of a very small group! -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with both of the above. Membership of a state parliament certainly allows notability. Frickeg (talk) 04:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As above. Passes notability test although the article could certainly be better written to highlight notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roisterer (talk • contribs) 05:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable as a member of the Victorian State legislature. Nick mallory (talk) 08:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, members of state parliaments are inherently notable. Lankiveil (talk) 11:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep regardless of actual policy, anyone with a paliamentary biography should be sufficiently notable for us here. As it is, Doyle meets WP:BIO through belonging to state legislature.Ga rr ie 23:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:BIO (with no disrespect to the nominator, who acted appropriately). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Canley comment. I tagged an early version of this article for speedy-delete because it failed notability tests ... it was just about an Australian politician. Since then, the info about Victoria parliament (and other info) has been added, so it now passes WP:NOT. Truthanado (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 04:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Thater

Not notable artist. jj137 ^♠ 03:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (shrug) I speedied it, so I guess I agree. Ψν^Psi_nu 03:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she does appear to strongly meet the additional criteria for creative professionals in WP:BIO, i.e., both international exhibitions and awards. Her work appears to have been widely exhibited, with a work in the Guggenheim collection (impressed me, at any rate). I've added her Carnegie museum bio to the External links to help substantiate this, as the current links don't do a very good job. While I have no connection to the article I would urge my colleagues to retain it, on the basis that art and culture need to be reflected in Wikipedia. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Thater is more than notable: she's been in the Carnegie International, Whitney Biennial, Dia Center for the Arts, Museum of Modern Art, Walker Art Center (I didn't check the history of the page--maybe her exhibition record was added after the article was AfD'd). Anyway, she's internationally known and has been shown at numerous significant galleries, museums and biennial. The article does need more sources, but there should be plenty out there. A google search gives you 22,800 hits--pretty much all of it her. freshacconcispeaktome 22:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just checked the history: all the info on exhibitions was there before the AfD. Why would this had ever been brought up for deletion, Afd or speedy? Shouldn't it have just been tagged for references? Notability is quite obvious. freshacconcispeaktome 23:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Whitney Biennial, MoMA, Guggenheim Fellowship...--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep perhaps even a speedy keep per Freshacconci. A strange AfD nom, an even stranger speedy nom. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I am having a lot of trouble understanding why this would be up fpr speedy deletion. When I google musicains, actors and writers I see lots of entries. is there a bias against the visual arts? They may be less popular but that certainly doesn't make them unimportant. I can work on building more references but I still am unclear why it should be tagged for speedy deletionEddiesmom (talk) 02:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per all above. Nominator please learn from this! Johnbod (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Bongwarrior (talk) 01:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

QIK

No sources can be found which affords QIK notability inline with WP policies. Russavia (talk) 03:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 03:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per WP:V. One Google Books hit, few regular Google hits.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Great improvement.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added references as best I can see, it is notable and seems to be a major reservation system used by airlines - Fosnez (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this seems to be adequately sourced now. — brighterorange (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 02:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the sources cited in QIK#References are sufficient to establish a presumption of this program's notability per the general notability guideline. John254 04:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 04:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Ebner

Nun that fails WP:NN. Additionally, no references cited except the copy-paste origin of the article. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The article is skimpy, but there does appear to be a degree of notability. Is there another article that this could be merged into?--Jeff Johnston (talk) 02:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google search turns up next to nothing aside from hits on various Catholic websites, which aren't exactly unbiased sources of information. Master of Puppets ^{Call me MoP!☺)} 03:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep gets quite a few Google scholar hits. RMHED (talk) 03:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If it incorporates text from an older public ___domain encyclopedia, then to delete this would contravene the aims of the WikiProject Missing Articles (WP:MISSING) which aims to have Wikipedia articles for every article in every other encyclopedia. The Google Scholar hits look promising. On top of all that, to be remembered from before the Middle Ages is a sign that you're notable.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Catholic Encyclopedia is a good source. Judging someone from the fourteenth century on google hits is slightly strange, discounting catholic sources about a nun because they 'arent' exactly unbiased' is very strange indeed. Someone remembered after seven hundred years for something she's written has proven her worthiness in my opinion. Nick mallory (talk) 08:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but only on the grounds that she is the author of a historical work. As a general rule, the Catholic Encyclopedia is NOT a good source because, as it happens, it isn't exactly unbiased, but in this case that's not important. (Incidentally, I've suffered an affliction which appears three times a year for much longer than the ten years she did. That's the problem with the common cold.)Emeraude (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment. Should we stop using sources by scientists about science? After all, there's a definite COI issue there ... --Paularblaster (talk) 13:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per h i s reasoning above. --Lockley (talk) 08:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lame drivers

No assertion of band's notability per WP:N or WP:MUSIC. No references could be found to indicate any album availability. Mh29255 (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unverifiable --Ryan Delaney ^talk 03:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't verify, fails WP:MUSIC. A Google search for "Lame drivers" turns up nothing except for their official site, Myspace and a few other similar links. Master of Puppets ^{Call me MoP!☺)} 03:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with everyone on this.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, fails wp:music. Funeral 15:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud (entertainer)

NN, Vanity. Cannot find anything that asserts notability. He seems accomplished, but doesn't appear to qualify him for his own article. References are links to his IMDB page and his website. EndlessDan 21:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found a sentence of praise in The Guardian, but nothing else. Filmerica seems non-notable. –Pomte 12:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searched Google, found nothing except for a few deviantart pages. Nothing to be cited, at least Google search for "Daniel Campos"). Master of Puppets ^{Call me MoP!☺)} 03:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The references don't verify the text - a common problem in articles written by inexperienced users - because they link directly to the home page of a .com website instead of to articles or pages within these websites.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund Darris

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Edmund Darris

This article quotes no sources. Google produces no references which do not arise from Wikipedia. I believe the whole thing to be a hoax. Ian Dalziel (talk) 16:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost certian that this is a hoax. STORMTRACKER 94 14:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, most of the article is bogus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.132.123 (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references found on Google; if he has met Vaughn and King then you'd think he would be mentioned somewhere... Master of Puppets ^{Call me MoP!☺)} 03:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Master of Puppets. Madman (talk) 05:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. He has no biography at the All Music Guide. This is a pack of lies.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Non-admin closure. The Evil Spartan (talk) 23:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Rosenkranz

Seemingly non-notable. Little mentions of him on news. Previously prodded by myself Montchav (talk) 13:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notability as per se, with no reliable sourcing backing up any of the evidence. Rt . 18:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found quite a few reliable sources; He's been interviewed by CNN (twice), been in a USA Today article, and written an article for the New York Times. Seems to indicate notability to me. Of course, the article isn't in great shape, so a rewrite could be useful. Master of Puppets ^{Call me MoP!☺)} 03:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and his book was praised by Dick Cheney, who wrote a foreword for it. See here. I'll go about adding more information to the article. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 18:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Master of Puppets.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kids' WB's 2008-2009 shows

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kids' WB's 2008-2009 shows

Unverifiable information that shouldn't even need its own article Matty-chan (talk) 20:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Because the network is going to be absorbed into 4Kids TV we don't even know there will be a Kids' WB come September 2008. No prejudice to this article being created in May 2008 when the new schedule is announced. Nate · (chatter) 03:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because of crystal ballery. Unless referenced by an offical site, this can't be proven. Tavix (talk) 03:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crystal ball. As noted above there may not be a Kids WB in the fall, and it is not as yet a certainty that there will be any series commissioned for 2008-09 until the WGA strike ends. 23skidoo (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Doctorfluffy (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, default to keep. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nickerson Farms

seemingly non-notable restaurant/bee farm. Previously speedied by me, rejceted by admin Montchav (talk) 13:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, seems to have a nostalgia value similar to Stuckey's, was most likely a notable (if kitschy) chain in its time. Best source I could find, however, was this. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus --JForget 00:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Alan Fox

Seemingly non-notable. Claimed he is vice-chairman of a national organisation, and is seemingly a respected doctor, but not much to back up these claims Montchav (talk) 13:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Longhair\^talk 17:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I found this asserting that he was Vice Chairman on an independent site, problem is the link itself was not valid and I had to go to Google's cache. Lankiveil (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep this seems to highlight it for me. Twenty Years 01:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Twenty Years. Also being Head of Department of a major hospital is rather more than being a respected doctor. --Bduke (talk) 05:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article about an important person at a major hospital. Stormbay (talk) 02:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N; the only source so far produced is not independent of the subject. Jfire (talk) 03:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak keep 24 published papers in Web of Science, with the most cited being 70, 49, 35, 17 times. A borderline record for a medical scientist. Major hospital. but only Associate professor at the relevant university medical school. The 3rd para is a direct copyvio from the external reference. DGG (talk) 02:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC),[reply]
Delete. The publication record uncovered by DGG is below the borderline for me. --Crusio (talk) 10:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 22:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tri-mantic

Completely non-notable and perhaps even patent nonsense. There are only 11 Google hits, most of which are Wikipedia or its mirrors. Madman (talk) 01:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like original research.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Ewings

Contested prod, with no explanation offered for removal of prod tag, so this a procedural nomination. ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oops! I wrote "with explanation offered", but meant "no explanation". Now corrected. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be completely non-notable individual. No reliable coverage in independent third-party sources. - fchd (talk) 07:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So what is he? If I read right, a nurse who has branched out with a fancy title and got some work as a film extra when they filmed at his place of work. Doesn't seem notable to me.Emeraude (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Kannie | talk 18:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails the notability test. Terraxos (talk) 04:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 22:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vitality (magazine)

Article does not seem to meet WP:NOTE and has little context Alexfusco⁵ 02:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable. GJ (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've read it on occasion myself, but it's not especially notable — I'd frankly hazard a guess that almost every major city in North America has a pretty similar local publication, and content-wise it's only about one step removed from a Learning Annex course catalogue. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per A7.. jj137 ^♠ 03:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Djan

Article appears to have been created by the subject for purpose of self promotion. Article is about a non-notable child and thus should be deleted. Sassf (talk) 02:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In fact, I believe this should be a speedy. Madman (talk) 03:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Town Goon

Tagged for speedy deletion as a hoax, several links on WP about this. Unsure, a Google search doesn't turn up much. Keilana^talk_(recall) 02:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:V miserably. A Google search turns up nothing other than Wikipedia. It's a waste of time debating this as it's an obvious hoax and could qualify for a speedy as nonsense or vandalism.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no none wikipedia results for a google search indicates a hoax - Dumelow (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with all above. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
let it stay having grown up in the town, I can attest to it being a local legend and was careful to label it as a legend. I was also careful to state it has never been documented. However, like another reference I made in the underlying grant town article, the Telltale Lilac Bush is a local book of ghost stories--another topic that can't be documented, can be a hoax in some opinions, but is authenticated by a published book. Since Wikipedia contains other articles on legends, etc., I think this is an appropriate explanation of a local legend. Otherwise, delete Bigfoot. If the whole world was on google, why bother to edit? Burnsfessler (talk) 01:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Item Should Remain As a person in a neighboring city, I heard of this local legend from my father and Uncles who grew up in the town. I agree with the statment above about properly stating that it was a legend and not documented. I was very glad to see this on Wikipedia and have since sent the article to several people who know of this legend from that and neighboring towns. If required I would be able to obtain a picture of the place the legend is believed to be focused, and where many local kids ranging from middle through highschool go looking for the Grant Town Goon to this day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.189.220 (talk) 02:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC) — 68.33.189.220 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete There are sources for the Bigfoot article, there are none for this. Edward321 (talk) 03:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and others fails WP:V Alexfusco⁵ 17:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, completely unsourceable, violates WP:V. At worst a hoax; at best a non-notable local urban legend. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and Salt ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia Miguel

AfDs for this article:

This article was deleted via AfD about a year ago. The content of the current version is different enough from the deleted version that I'm not comfortable deleting it as reposted material, but the similarities between the two don't leave much doubt that it's the same person. The current version of the article appears to be notable at a glance, but it's a forgery. Most of the "modeling career" section was copied from the Alessandra Ambrosio article, along with the claim of being an ambassador for the National Multiple Sclerosis Society. Most/all of the references and external links were also copied from the Alessandra Ambrosio article, with the names changed to "Alicia Miguel". A google search for "Alicia Miguel" + "supermodel" = virtually nothing. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt: And to boot, those links in the article that aren't actually Ambrosio's are, unsurprisingly, broken. Let's put this hoaxer to rest, and I hope to a block, too. Ravenswing 06:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and maybe salt. So much of this is based on lies that it makes it impossible to verify what's true and what's not.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and maybe salt. This is ridiculousness. Flyer22 (talk) 08:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
D&S per above. —Moondyne 14:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt If notability changes there is a process to allow later addition of an article on this person.OneHappyHusky (talk) 06:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (nomination withdrawn). Non-admin closure by 12 Noon ^2¢ 21:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Watson (magician)

Claims to be internationally renowned, but absolutely no proof of notability. Was tagged for speedy as so assertion of notability, but I declined, as being internationally renowned sounds like a claim of notability. Nyttend (talk) 02:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found this [25] If the claims are true I think there's a definate arguement that he's notable, but I think it would have to be sourced from a different reference. This looks like a place to hire speakers and probably wouldn't hold up to WP:RS.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he might have some marginal notability amongst his peers, but no sign of any substantial notability in the wider world. RMHED (talk) 02:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks to the rewrite it's now clear he has enough notability in his field to warrant an article RMHED (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

VIQleSthe2nd (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I took out the fluff. Take another look at it. GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definite notability in the magic world. I don't agree with RMHED's argument that notability needs to be worldwide to be valid. There's probably plenty of notable physicists or archaeologists that are very notable but don't make it into mainstream media. Tanthalas39 (talk) 04:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment true enough but as he's in the entertainment industry you could reasonably expect to find some mainstream media coverage. It's clear he has far more than marginal notability in his field, I have changed my opinion accordingly. RMHED (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to have strong notability within the magic community supported by the additional references cited above - Dumelow (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep, rather obvious where this is going :-) Withdrawing nomination. Nyttend (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was suggested merge to Tiësto's Club Life has already been completed. I see no reason why the redirects can not stay so the history is retained. Bduke (talk) 12:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tiësto's Club Life Episode 001

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Tiësto's Club Life Episode 001

Wikipedia pages for individual setlists of a radio show does not satisfy notability guidelines. Suggest merge any notable content into Tiësto's Club Life and delete. Jonathan Williams (talk) 01:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Jonathan Williams (talk) 02:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all unencyclopedic and of no real value imo, unreferenced and nothing that establishes any kind of notability for each episode. RMHED (talk) 02:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Per RHMED and nominator. Malinaccier (talk) 02:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All per RMHED and nom. Mh29255 (talk) 05:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above. SQL ^{Query me!} 08:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All all are non-notable and not useful to include on wikipedia - Dumelow (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All - non-notable articles. Macy's 123 review me 20:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete - CSD G12. Mattinbgn\^talk 06:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marple Cricket Club

Non-notable cricket club playing at a merely local level. No independent reliable sources or any sources for that matter have been provided. Was tagged as speedy deletion but I am listing it here for further discussion Mattinbgn\^talk 01:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —Mattinbgn\^talk 01:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was a copyright violation from here and has been deleted per WP:CSD#G12. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Also, I have restored all revisions prior to the article being hijacked. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sid Bass (songwriter)

Rapper that yet to release an album. Therefore, not sufficiently notable for entry. Question: Is this Sid Bass notable enough? 650l2520 (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails to establish notability, and does not meet the criteria of WP:MUSIC. Mouchoir le Souris (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Mouchoir le Souris Madman (talk) 03:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Opening paragraph admits that although he has not yet released an album, he hopes he will get good reviews when it is released. The notability train goes downhill from there. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 04:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete. We're debating the notability of the music career of a 13-year-old boy without a record deal. We need not waste any more time.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tavix 23:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tavix (talk • contribs)
- Snowball delete - HisSpaceResearch is absolutely correct. Oli Filth^(talk) 00:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 04:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Seven Songs of Merlin

There is no notability shown, no content other than an unverifiable plot summary. I would just speedy this, but I haven't found a category to throw it under. American Patriot 1776 (talk) 01:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems that this is a part of a series of books made by T. A. Barron. I don't know how notable this writer is in America but his article doesn't state much notability. The nom might be interested in looking into The Lost Years of Merlin a related article that has plot problems as well. I will not vote for now since I do not have enough knowledge in American litt. I suggest more editors knowledgeable in American literature look this up. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep The time between creation and this AfD was 7 minutes. Come on, give the editor a chance to write the article. This is his first writing at wikipedia. A quick google search on the part of the nom would have shown that the book likely has notability. I found a number of reviews of both the book and the series. You can't expect the article to be good to go in 7 minutes when written by a new editor. Nor should you put something up for deletion until you checked to see if it is likely notable or at least tagging the article for a bit and letting others fix it. Sorry if my tone is harsh, but this seems excessive to me. Hobit (talk) 02:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Stands up on his chair and applauds* --Kiz o r 10:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: The most cursory Google search shows this book up, which is in Amazon.com's top 100,000 in sales; not too bad. Quite aside from my equal indignation at an AfD in seven minutes flat (which, I regret, is far from the record), I strongly suggest that the nom focus less on being the first to nominate any article that isn't perfect moments from first creation and spend the ten seconds it took to verify its notability. RGTraynor 06:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom. nothing there. --Jack Merridew 09:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oy, yet. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 02:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - agree needs some improving as currently I have no idea what it is about. Although I think the AfD nom was pretty speedy at least the editor will still be around to add sources for 5 days hopefully. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite The article is dismal, but it was written by a first-time contributor--please don't bite the newbies. As for the subject, it appears to be notable: this is a book that has gone through several reeditions [26]; the author has an article, and so does the previous book in the series. In its present form the article consists of nothing but a poorly written plot summary, but that is hardly damning considering that it is an editor's first article, and that it was aggressively listed for deletion mere minutes after being created. Give the author a break, and wait for the article to improve before shooting it down. Freederick (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seven minutes is certainly not a reasonable amount of time in which to determine the fate of an article seemingly written in good faith. That's why we have {{stub}}. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 02:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As a person who was bitten horribly when I first started to actively edit Wikipedia, I feel terrible that this AFD is up so soon. The book obviously meets WP:N. Keep it. --Shark face 217 21:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep — Caknuck (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shen Junshan

Article subject is not notable--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 01:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There may be notability here, particularly if the subject has published works or research from his time as a professor at the university. I can find no evidence of this, but sources may prove me wrong. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 01:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not appear to meet the criteria of WP:BIO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mouchoir le Souris (talk • contribs) 01:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not much information about him. Michael Houang (talk) 01:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep article claims that he was President of one of Taiwan's "most prestigious universities". I find some on-line sources to back up the claim (e.g. [27]). that's good enough for me for now. Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Pete Hurd. Article is indeed not notable as it stands, but as President of a major university, the subject is. Article needs expansion and sourcing. --Crusio (talk) 10:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as president of a major university. I added the Chinese version of his name, as it was listed in the NTHU article (after checking Google to be sure that the names actually matched), and linked that article to this one. If someone here can read Chinese, this page at NTHU seems to be about him. His book (ISBN 957560749X) also appears to be relevant, perhaps a memoir; it's gone through two editions. Despite being in Chinese, is in several American libraries, and has about 3k Google hits when searching for its Chinese title and author [28]. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I expanded the article based on various Chinese sources. Notable for his political as well as academic roles. Unfortunately I'm completely clueless about Taiwan politics, but he seems to be important given that he's compared to someone like Lien Chan and called one of the "four princes" of the KMT. cab (talk) 06:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep presidents of major universities are notable, DGG (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree (see my keep above), but at this point, after cab's improvements, I think notability is obvious per WP:BIO without having to resort to generic arguments such as this. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The Placebo Effect (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Redman

Contested prod. User has no notability. All links are to self published sites and don't contain any information for example one will say "Review" but leads to basically a blank bio page. I can find no sources to conform claims of notability, nothing on the people he has claimed he worked, nothing on international touring, nothing on his book. Also kind of strange that anon that claims to be a fan of his showed up 10 minutes before he logged in to blank his talk page. Ridernyc (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also recommend salting, since this is at least the second time this was created.Ridernyc (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm disappointed in that I prodded the article to give the creator time to come up with sources, and what I see don't seem to verify meeting WP:MUSIC. Dloh cierekim 01:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I could not find anything helpful on the web or in the news. As always, I'm eagerly hoping someone will find something I missed. Dloh cierekim 01:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now we have both checked. His own bio dose not even support the claims made in the article. Ridernyc (talk) 01:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My search also turned up nothing to indicate this passes WP:MUS. Doctorfluffy (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC; self-published book; his label Browneyes Records returns 5 ghits and the three that are actual references to the label are Redman's website, his MySpace page, and his Wikipedia article. That's when I stopped trying to find notability. Precious Roy (talk) 21:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete by Kurt Shaped Box Speedy deleted per (CSD G10), was a attack page intented to disparage its subject. (non-admin close) —Travis ^talk 00:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fredrik Mozart Ingvaldsen

Apparent hoax as there are exactly zero ghits for this “person.” Wikipedia is not for people made up while listening to classical music one day. —Travis ^talk 00:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost screams hoax; for example, see this sentence; His symphonies are heavily influenced by major events in his life, and are mostly about death and flowers. Basically, major events in his life were death and involved flowers. It is humorous, I must say... Master of Puppets ^{Call me MoP!} 00:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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