Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 March 24

< March 23	March 25 >

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. Tiptoety ^talk 22:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EverQuest universe

I can understand why an article titled "[xx] universe" would exist. It would help readers understand the intricacies of the fictional universe that are too in-depth to list in the main article. For example, look at Dune universe. It helps explain the setting of the novels. Now look at this article. What is the reason for its existence? It consists of two sentences summarizing the game, followed by a list of sequels and novels. There's nothing here that couldn't be mentioned in passing in the Everquest article. Enok^talk 15:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I agree with the comparison with the Dune Universe page as an example of how something like this should be done. This page has been around since 2004 and has not expanded. The article Everquest deals with this well enough, and has a box thing full of links at the bottom so you can easily navigate to Everquest-related articles. This page therefore serves no purpose, and hardly says anything. Richard75 (talk) 01:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Gazimoff (talk) 10:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and Richard75. JohnCD (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With the lack of sources exist the lack of notability. Readers who do not play the EverQuest series would most likely have little interest in this article. IAmSasori (talk) 17:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was already speedy deleted. Bduke (talk) 00:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KirbyManiac

Redundant with user page User_talk:KirbyManiac Novangelis (talk) 23:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7, so tagged. --On the other side ^Contribs|@ 23:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The user just moved User:KirbyManiac to KirbyManiac (same thing with the talk pages). I reverted the move so I guess this AfD can close. --On the other side ^Contribs|@ 23:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete R2, redirect from article space to user space, tag already placed by another user. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scaunchburo Mall

Entirely original research. Lacks sources to verify information. A redirect to Mr. Meaty would be okay, otherwise delete. On the other side ^Contribs|@ 23:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wow, this is a first -- a page on a fictional mall. Anyway, it's written entirely in universe; it's unsourced and will likely remain so; and it doesn't show any out of universe notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mr. Meaty. WP:FICT states that non-notable spin outs of fictional topics should only be created when there are size and style issues. Curently the main article is under 5kb, less than a tenth of the recomended maximun suggested at WP:SIZE, any encyclopaedic conetnt could easily be included in the main article. Guest9999 (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Why on earth would anyone create a page like this? Ogranut (talk) 02:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This type of articles should be deleted. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Guest9999 DJLayton4 (talk) 03:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect No third party source for real world notability. Ultra! 15:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wizardman 02:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fermat's Last Theorem in fiction

Full article is a "trivia section". Has no regular section. Georgia guy (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This list is a loosely associated conglomeration of trivial references to Fermat's Last Theorem, with no references in sight. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No references? Isn't the article only, or at least primarily, a list of references? Michael Hardy (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article was originally a section of Fermat's Last Theorem, but "spun out" because it was getting rather long. (See Talk:Fermat's last theorem#In fiction). If the presence of a regular section is essential, that can easily be catered for by supplying one, rather than deleting this article (and seeing it come back as a section in the FLT article). As to the absence of references, if you write something like "In Tom Stoppard's play Arcadia, Septimus Hodge poses the problem of proving Fermat's Last Theorem ...", then the source for this is Tom Stoppard's play Arcadia. It is possible to add a reference to a note saying something like "4. ^Tom Stoppard. Arcadia.", but doing that is just silly. Most entries are self-referenced in this way. Anyway, lack of citations is not a ground for deleting the whole article. --Lambiam 00:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Trivia sections are generally discouraged, but "in popular culture" sections are exceptions. Calling this "in fiction" may not be optimal, but deletion seems inappropriate. (In spite of my voting for the deletionist above in his RfA.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this is one trivia article that is notable. --Bduke (talk) 01:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided - I think one of the problems here is that this is a "spin off" article, and it's hard to say. For the moment, I'd say trim and merge back, but I'm not sure. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In a more nearly perfect world, I'd just as soon see most of these sections sent to the briny deep. But will they stay there? Some things really are Better Here Than There, that problematic essay notwithstanding, and I don't really see most of the usual "delete" voters in these discussions volunteering to make sure the main article stays clean. Sequestering this sort of material in a side article strikes me as a useful form of harm reduction -- people who care about it can maintain it, readers who are genuinely interested can find it, and it's sufficiently off the beaten path that it doesn't much detract from the scholarly focus of the visible part of the encyclopedia. --Trovatore (talk) 01:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a trivia article....however, it is interesting and notable. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Calling it an "article" may be a bit of a stretch, but Lambiam and Trovatore make a persuasive case that keeping it is a good compromise from the point of view of maintaining the FLT article itself. Arcfrk (talk) 06:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's an "in popular culture" article, not a "trivia" article - completly different thing. WP:IPC does not forbid such articles. References are in primary sources which are linked directly or indirectly via Wiki link. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The notion that trivia lists need to be their own articles as a "compromise" is bull poo. They don't need to be in the main article or anywhere else. If a work of fiction mentions the theorem, say so in that article. That's all you need. Enok^talk 15:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the problem is that, no, we shouldn't say so in the main article. Doesn't belong there. If people are going to insist on it being somewhere, then there needs to be a somewhere else. --Trovatore (talk) 18:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wasn't talking about the article Fermat's Last Theorem. We can agree that this junk doesn't belong there. I was referring to articles like The Royale, Treehouse of Horror VI, et cetera. Just mention the theorem in passing there. Enok^talk 21:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm going to say keep on this one, since Fermat's last theorem is something that has penetrated very deeply into popular culture. Everyone hears of it and all the legends and myths connected with it very early in life. That fact should get reported in Wikipedia, and it seems appropriate that it should not be in the Fermat's last theorem article itself, since this is a culture topic and not a math topic. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - although it may be a spin off from the main article, it still consists of a trivia list with no other information or commetnary on Fermat's Last theorem in fiction. -- Whpq (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This isn't a trvia article, it's a "popular culture" type article. The significance of theorem and its prevalaance in popular culture means this is sufficiently notable to keep. Tompw (talk) (review) 20:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It would be preferable to trim, to make significant mentions (in Porges and Stoppard, FLT drives the plot; in Fforde, it's a passing weirdness on a single page) more prominent. But no reason to delete. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Tough call, as it is really a trivia section with no encyclopedic content, and Wikipedia is not a miscellaneous collection of trivia. - Chardish (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments other keepers have given. —Lowellian (reply) 02:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete A7. — Scientizzle 23:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nic Atkinson

Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7 does not establish significance. Already speedyed once today [1]. Guest9999 (talk) 23:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete significance or importance not established. Does not meet WP:MUSIC -- Taroaldo (talk) 23:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Dlete. Tiptoety ^talk 22:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Labyrinth Project

Obscure web project which "was still unfinished when its Internet ___domain expired near the end of 2003." Can't see any point in preserving it on WP. Camillus (talk) 23:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless someone can explain why this is even remotely relevant.Helixweb (talk) 23:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems wholly un-notable to me. At any rate it would need references to survive, and I can't find any. DJLayton4 (talk) 03:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable project. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is about something which ceased to exist five years ago, before it was even finished, and there are no signs of it being resurrected, except here. What for? Richard75 (talk) 01:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G11 criteria, and this is also redundant to about every other help page here... Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 00:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The world of Wikipedia

Delete: Redundant to the article Wikipedia. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing 444 23:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a help guide, essentially, which we have at various locations. Metros (talk) 23:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article can be deleted even if it doesn't damage Wikipedia or its reputation. But as Louis Armstrong said, "What a wonderful world...." Mandsford (talk) 23:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete Flattering but not at all NPOV or reliably sourced. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE i think that the article is reliably sourced! It talks about Wikipedia and says good things about Wikipedia, so I don't think it should be deleted! This article says good things about Wikipedia that could promote Wikipedia's reputation and increase Wikipedia's reputation. Kristy22 (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete More rampant trolling. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete Cinnamon colbert (talk) 00:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Useless, duplicate, obvious and trolling. -- Alexf⁴² 00:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), nomination withdrawn. Whpq (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Barthelmes

To my understanding, notability for professional sportspeople requires that they play at least one game at the fully-professional level for their sport. This article makes no such claim about its subject; my impression is that the guy was good enough to be signed but not good enough to play. Nyttend (talk) 23:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This has been brought up before and the AfD failed. Player participated in a preseason game at the professional level, thus qualifies under WP:BIO. Pats1 ^T/C 23:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean in your first sentence? I can't find any reference to this page having been brought up before. Nyttend (talk) 23:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Tommy Davis (defensive end) comes to mind, but there was one more recently that I'm forgetting. Pats1 ^T/C 00:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Preseason games are exhibition games. They do not count in any standings or competition. They are an extension of training camp. Subject has not appeared on the regular roster in any regular or postseason games. Those are the games that count for WP:ATHLETE. DarkAudit (talk) 00:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is your personal interpretation, found nowhere in WP:ATHLETE. Pats1 ^T/C 00:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As Pats1 has already said, this is an NFL player that has participated in an organized NFL game. Whether or not it counts in final standings is irrelevant. It was an officiated game between NFL franchises. Furthermore, one could argue that since the NFL is the largest American football league in the world, that if ANY player from a lesser league is notable enough (even the best Arena or CFL player) then ANY NFL player is certainly notable. The fact is, anyone on an NFL roster is a likely candidate to get looked up by the public and therefore warrants an article in this encyclopedia.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 00:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~"Competed" tends to mean playing in games that actually count. Preseason does not. He did not make the team.~~ DarkAudit (talk) 01:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unfortunately, the last time I checked, when you play in an NFL game (or any game for that matter), you are competing against an opponent. There is nothing about preseason games not counting in WP:BIO. There is nothing about making a team or not (which is in and of itself a loose-fitting term). I can't see where your argument holds water. Besides, this is an issue of semantics that I'm not willing to get into. The point of WP:ATHLETE is clear. Pats1 ^T/C 01:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - ~~Any scrub can appear in a preseason game. That's why they're preseason games. This person has never made an officially recognized appearance in an actual NFL season game.~~ DarkAudit (talk) 01:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - That then "scrub" falls under WP:ATHLETE. I don't understand your point. Pats1 ^T/C 01:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The point is, I'm a doofus. He's listed on NFL.com, the Patriots' site, and ESPN.com. They say he's on the team. satisfies me. DarkAudit (talk) 02:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, DarkAudit, is that under the current guidelines, a player in a preseason game fits. If you don't want it to be that way, then you have to get a specification added (which a lot of us would protest). But under the current terms of notability, there is no distinction between preseason and any other game, and therefore it is a fact that Barthelmes fits the bill.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You got me in an edit conflict while I was changing my !vote. :) DarkAudit (talk) 02:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact he's on the team made you change your mind? Was that ever called into question...►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he isn't on the team - he hasn't been since last August. Pats1 ^T/C 11:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The links above were checked last night, so I would assume they're current. Those are enough to satisfy most notability requirements. DarkAudit (talk) 15:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Regardless of the pre-season/regular season controversy, [2] indicates that he was assigned by the Patriots to and played a season for the Amsterdam team in NFL Europa. Would that not also count has having appeared in a fully-professional league? Mlaffs (talk) 02:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination as there's finally a source provided to demonstrate that he has competed; the nomination was made because the article made it sound like the guy had never competed. The article gives no source for him playing in any games; this Boston.com source needs to be added. Nyttend (talk) 02:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lime studio

Prodecural nom. Was tagged for speedy A7. While it certainly seems to lack notability, I think there's a claim of importance there. Unless independent references and something to support WP:N turns up, it should be deleted. Marasmusine (talk) 10:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:N – ukexpat (talk) 18:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like a sales pitch, don't see much in the way of notability.Helixweb (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 15 Midway upon life's journey... 23:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:N. Macy (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:N - Milk's Favorite Cookie 23:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arguments for keep were thin on policy, but consensus is to keep.--Kubigula (talk) 20:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Davis

Non-notable Youtube personality, with only claim to fame is a small tie-in with the Lonelygirl15 series. Jmlk 1 7 04:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Small tie-in"? If you read the New York Times article you can see he's one of the three stars of the series. If you want to delete it, okay, ~~but there's no need to misrepresent the facts~~. --JayHenry (talk) 04:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I realize now that the NY Times article isn't freely available, so apologize for accusing you of misrepresenting the facts, when this information wasn't clear in the article. At any rate, he is one of the stars of the series, so should be considered in that light. --JayHenry (talk) 05:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a bit hinky. Well, so I didn't realize that lonelygirl15 had gone to the great 404 in the sky, only to be replaced with a rotating cast somehow keeping her still in their thoughts. Possibly that suggests some notability but it's probably better to handle the characters in the original article or the List of lonelygirl15 characters article. These cast articles sort of combine the real actors with their characters so it's hard to judge notability. If it were just the actor I'd say delete and mention at the list of characters article. --Dhartung | Talk 04:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable Dreamspy (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I note that the nominator also recently nominated KateModern for deletion, which was speedily kept, so I am not sure of his knowledge in the internet TV field. Here the basis of the nomination was that the actor has only a "small tie in" with lonelygirl15, which is just not accurate. On the merits, Jackson Davis has been one of primary actors on the show for over a year, and has throngs of female admirers. I would agree that most of the other actors in the cast do not deserve their own pages, but I feel he crosses the line of meriting one. --Milowent (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See the comments on the Talk page: [[3]]--Modelmotion (talk) 02:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know what the rules are but i use Wikipedia a lot. It simply defies sanity to delete someone like Jackson Davis. He plays a lead role in a ground breaking web series and clearly he is an actor who should be watched. If this is beyond the scope of Wikipedia then perhaps it is time for that scope to change and show more support for the genre of web series which is a rapidly growing media platform.--Modelmotion (talk) 22:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The page is lacking on information, I'll grant that. But since when do we delete pages based on lack of information? He is most certainly a notable personality. Can we just stub the article and move on? He's almost more notable of a YouTube celebrity than Yousef Abu-Taleb and Jessica Lee Rose. I fail to see how, because his main notability is that of a YouTube/Internet celebrity, detracts from notability. (Also note that there is an entire page relating to YouTube celebrities.) - Shiori (talk) 14:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is the main focus of lonelygirl15, moreso than Jessica Lee Rose I feel, as she is no longer in it, he has taken over the role of the lead character, more than any of the other characters have. I agree some other people, such as Becki maybe do not deserve a page as much, but Jackson does. Career-wise, he has done as much, if not more than Yousef. For a new fan of the show, Wikipedia will always be the first port of call, and it would therefore make no sense if Jackson does not have a page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babygurl1853 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with the others. Jackson is a key player in this popular web series. His character is now considered one of the two main characters, along with the others. Jackson is definitely someone to keep. His resume is continuously getting longer and I think maybe wait six months to a year to see how he develops in notoriety Chelseyrl (talk) 02:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is a very talented actor with obvious talent who has much more to come, his page deserves to be kept up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.112.71 (talk) 05:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete: author blanked the page Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tcs crawlers

Delete: Fails WP:ORG and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7. Author blanked article. I'll tag it for SD. --On the other side ^Contribs|@ 22:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mar de Grises

Fails WP:MUSIC horribly. Non-notable and badly written article. Please delete. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added their album. Delete both for failing all criteria of WP:MUSIC; no major label albums, no chart singles, etc. And, if the album is deleted, please don't forget Category:Mar de Grises albums. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Mar de Grises article does mention a European tour, which would meet WP:MUSIC. Might we do a little source-searching before writing them off? SingCal 07:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable Dreamspy (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:MUSIC criterion 4, the presence of claims in article needing verification is a WP:PROBLEM, not a valid reason for deletion. See also [4], [5]. Skomorokh 14:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It fails so many of the other criterion, in fact all, except that one. The band is just no notable. Plus I doubt the validity and reputability of those two sites you sourced. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 19:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn with no !votes for deletion made. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Park Compton Crips

*Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per these two articles, and that one. The scholar one is rather flimsy, but the news sources are OK. A rewrite is needed though. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination per the sources provided above. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delte. Tiptoety ^talk 23:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coprocessor tuning

This article appears to be a hoax. Google searching for "aix cotune", "2.6.27 kernel tuning", "rs/6000 tuning" and other related searches turn up nothing of relevance except this article. The image provided is ambiguous, and I do not believe it is an actual tuning knob (though I leave that decision up to an expert in this field). In short: Google (and a few other search engines) fail to turn up anything which might support this article, and no sources have been produced in support of it. nneonneo (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No sources can be found whatsoever, which I find surprising for a scientific article. I feel this meets G3 ("obvious hoaxes and misinformation"), so I tagged it as such. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It definitely needs more sources. I talked to a few people in my University's computing group who indicated the knob (see the picture) is indeed used for coprocessor tuning. I don't have any system manuals so I can't verify the claim myself. I think it should be tagged with {{Refimprove}} rather than deleted outright (at least for now). Andareed (talk) 22:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am sceptical: what could such a knob possibly do to "tune" the accuracy of a coprocessor? The only thing I can think of would be to allow the user to turn up the clock speed till it starts making errors, then turn it gently back again till it stops; but that would seem a dodgy way to operate. JohnCD (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as almost certainly a hoax, but (as I hoped TenPoundHammer would have learnt from comments in his RFAs) there's no need to jump immediately for speedy deletion. This isn't a BLP case where letting it run for a few more days will harm anyone, and just possibly (although I consider it highly unlikely) someone will come up with a source. This isn't a news site where immediacy is important; it's a long-term project to build a collabarative encyclopedia by consensus. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, blatant hoax. --Yamla (talk) 01:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment - please note that WP:HOAX policy does allow articles about notable hoaxes, many of which are listed in the hoax article. This article should only be deleted if it is not "notable enough" to keep. (It looks like a hoax to me). --68.0.124.33 (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a notable hoax would need to be one that fooled a lot of people or generated a lot of comment, like Ern Malley or the Sokal hoax. A hoax article submission to Wikipedia that is promptly detected isn't likely to qualify, unless it is extraordinarily witty or subtle. JohnCD (talk) 22:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sunny 10

Article is just nonsense. Camillus (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete hoax, made up in school one day, WP is sole Ghit... Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Someone, anyone. Please. Plutonium27 (talk) 12:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this piece of crap. Richard75 (talk) 01:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a useless hoax. Please save us. (jarbarf) (talk) 17:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iain MacCall

Can find no reliable source which verifies notability of a Scottish Iain MacCall (or Ian McCall as suggested on talk) who participates in martial arts. May be hoax as American MMA fighter by name of Ian McCall exists - "references" two and three refer to him, not the subject of this article. Additionally, the position of senior manager is not inherently notable. Gr1st (talk) 10:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 22:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete May or may not be a hoax, but among the utter lack of sources and verifiability, the confusion over the name, and the lack of asserted notability, there's really nothing to go on here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable Dreamspy (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 01:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AHM (magazine)

Magazine with print run of 10-20 which has no evidence of notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the article it says '...AHM produces 10-20+ copies...' Whenaxis (talk)
Delete Fails on all counts. Paste (talk) 22:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not over yet than why did User:Paste say "'Delete Fails on all counts".Whenaxis (talk)

That's just the user's !vote. Articles for Deletion discussions usually stay open for a week. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not even convinced it exists. Earlier versions cited www.ahm.ca as its website - that doesn't seem to exist. --AndrewHowse (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete no evidence of any possible notability. DGG (talk) 03:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's "emergency" issue was its first in 2008? With a print run of 10-20+ copies? With that low a number, one would think an exact count would be easy. No notability whatsoever. -- Whpq (talk) 16:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. www.ahm.ca is non-extistent, the "emergency" issue was released because of the need of public attention to 'La Nina Formation' in the Atlantic. The count is not exact because there are different amounts of copies. And 10-20+ copies is just hard copies, there are 100-150 copies released over the e-mail. AHM is notable because its the hurricane-science magazine in the World. The only other hurricane-related magazine is a American magazine called 'Hurricane Protection Magazine'. And the reason its not noted on the article its because its still under construction. Whenaxis (talk)

Delete Crystal Ball. jonathon (talk) 00:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The very small circulation of this magazine and the lack of Google hits should be our clue that we are unlikely to find any reliable sources that testify to this magazine's importance, even with a thorough search. EdJohnston (talk) 01:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Em Sinfonia

Fails WP:MUSIC notability requirements and is a mess of an article that deserves a delete. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Claims to have a couple semi-notable members (including the dog from Family Guy -- just kidding), but I'm turning up virtually nothing in the way of sources here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TTOA

The organisation does not seem to be notable - there is no evidence of significant coverage by reliable, independent secondary sources. A Google search for "Tempo & Topaz Owner Association" returns six results, two from the website itself, two from Wikipedia and two from forums. This would seem to be quite low for a notable website or organisation. Guest9999 (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete - no reliable sources to indicate notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No third party sources.jonathon (talk) 00:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aborted Films

Can't find any notability for this "small independent film company". Cited web-site doesn't exist. Found something on MySpace. Article is full of juvenile nonsense. Come back when you've actually done something! Camillus (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, time to abort its Wikipedia article. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy D While there's still time enough to get that morning-after pill jobbie. Plutonium27 (talk) 12:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Knitting needle time! Richard75 (talk) 01:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability, broken link. nneonneo (talk) 19:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COMPET-N

"Old website collecting demo recordings for the Doom video game", therefore non-notable (fails WP:N), no reliable & verifiable sources (WP:RS, WP:V). Visor (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Visor (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Visor (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lots of links to youtube and blogs and whatnot, but no articles about this database so fails on reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Gazimoff (talk) 10:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Probably one of my favorite sites on the net and essential when considering Doom speed running (or perhaps also speed running in general). The site is already dealt with in various on-subject articles, including Doom (video game), speedrun, notable games for speedrunning, and Doom competitive gaming. COMPET-N could redirect to the latter. It also seems reasonable to adopt Compet-n in the Wikipedia as the name of the site, as it is a shortening of "competition" in order to fit as an MS-DOS era directory.

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

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

The result was keep. --jonny-m t 16:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Italian American mobsters

Redundant with Category:Italian-American mobsters. This cannot be allowed to contain redlinks anyway, as redlinks would mean people being called "mobsters" without citations and would violate WP:BLP. The list isn't great from a BLP standpoint anyway, as any references are on the articles not the list, so at a glance at the list we can't tell which entries may not have reliable citations that they are mobsters. The advantage of the category here is that the citation and the decision to include are in the same place. Doc^g 21:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed this is better handled with a category as a list like this would invite indiscriminate additions of names and create a WP:BLP nightmare. Categorizing works better because the articles listed in a category should under BLP contain the citations, etc. necessary to legitimize someone being given this label. As it stands now if I wanted to I could add the name of a teacher I didn't like in high school and no one would be the wiser. 23skidoo (talk) 22:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most of them are dead. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not much more than what's already found in the category. The only additional information on the list is the nicknames. Mandsford (talk) 23:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep A list is different from a category and serves a different purpose. It is ok in WP to have both lists and categories on the same subject. People like me maintain this list by removing redlinks and/or by moving them in the talk page, pending either WP articles or good references. This list can have redlinks with proper references so the premise of the deletion argument is false. Hmains (talk) 02:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as this is not a well-formed list, having minimal information (some nicknames and birth/death dates) beyond the category. It's also scoped by ethnic grouping, but this is a case where the grouping is generally voluntary and, uh, notable. Not sure what it provides that the other more narrowly scoped lists do not. --Dhartung | Talk 04:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This list was originally created from a category which I believe was the result of a CFD consensus but I cannot find it and I cannot recall the details because that happened nearly three years ago. Personally, I don't see the point of both the category and the list because they are are discriminatory based on race and nationality. RedWolf (talk) 07:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this list is kept, I will remove all mentions of living people that are not referenced from reliable citations ON the list itself.--Doc^g 08:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could be helpful by improving the list or you could be destrutive by just deleting items. Your plan is destructive and unhelpful. Hmains (talk) 03:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just squeaks in but needs a good wash and brush-up. Plutonium27 (talk) 12:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that a list that matches proper names and nicknames is useful in this instance. Many readers may only know the individual by a nickname they see in a movie or on TV. In addition, if you look at indictments and legal papers on Cosa Nostra figures, they almost always include the nicknames. As far as being discriminatory, the core of the Cosa Nostra was based on discrimination against anyone who was not Italian. Regarding vandalism, any list in Wikipedia is fair game for vandals; Hmains and Glasgow have indicated their willingness to police this list and I will help also.Rogermx (talk) 01:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. --jonny-m t 16:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie McDonnell

An OR-full article, seemingly promoting the "artist". Possibly even non-notable. Jmlk 1 7 22:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few links for you:

[6] [7] [8] [9] [10] Buc (talk) 14:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 21:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - multiple reliable sources exists so definitely notable. As for other issues, they aren't reasons for deletion, but are rather issues for article editting and improvement -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable by virtue of sources that were already in the article when it was nominated. OR and promotion can be dealt with by editing. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the references section was missing from the article so the inline references were not showing. I added the reference section after the nomination. -- Whpq (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Team White Hot

Distributed computing may be noteworthy, but I don't see any indication that this "distributed computing team" is notable, or any sources showing notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, no claims of notability, non-notable group. Corvus cornix_talk 21:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that it would be good to start wiki's on each different team in the distributed computing world. First off each team can show what contributions they have done to further better the world, i.e. Folding@Home helps to find out cures for Alzheimer's, Mad Cow, Huntington's, cancers and cancer-related syndromes. When you are doing a project that has such credibility as Folding@Home it would be nice for everyone to see what each team has done. On the surface it may not look like Team White Hot has done much, but below the surface they have helped advance science through donating unused process cycles and paying for the electricity needed to power the computers. Hawkeye2400 (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not even notable within its own tiny category, nor any sign that it's known outside that tiny category. As for their attempts to promote themselves, they can rent space on servers theirownselves and start their own wiki. --Calton | Talk 16:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the editor has been beavering away, creating an infobox and three different categories to prop up this odd notion of using Wikipedia to promote even more distributed-computing "teams". --Calton | Talk 16:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no signs of notability. Note that a member of the team has posted on their blog soliciting members to post on this AFD. -- Whpq (talk) 16:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The whole reason I am doing this is NOT to promote the team, if I wanted to do that honestly I would buy advertisements. The whole point is to try to get the other teams to join up and post pages in the biggest wiki available. Which would give you a detailed list of the teams that are participating. Quite honestly anyone can start a wiki, it just wont ever be found. Hawkeye2400 (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you're not trying to promote the team, you're trying to hijack Wikipedia to promote a WHOLE BUNCH of "teams". And this is praiseworthy HOW, exactly? --Calton | Talk 16:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly why this is needed NOT TO PROMOTE TEAMS! TO LEARN ABOUT THE TEAMS! This is exactly the same as a baseball team, we post stats, we have a background, we have players (members)! This is PRAISEWORTHY because of what we contribute to! We do more then the sports figures! We are doing this to better the world by helping find out how proteins fold and trying to cure cancer! THIS IS MORE PRAISEWORTHY THEN A BASEBALL PLAYER HITTING A BALL! Hawkeye2400 (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOT TO PROMOTE TEAMS! TO LEARN ABOUT THE TEAMS! - Given that you're unknown except possibly within your in-group -- and even that in-group notice is not clear -- distinctions without differences: Wikipedia is here to document notability/real-world impact, not promote it, and given that you specifically said you want your "teams" to post to "the biggest wiki available" because otherwise "it just wont ever be found", promotion is EXACTLY what you're after. --Calton | Talk 00:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - I agree with what Corvus cornix_talk said "no claims of notability, non-notable group." it sums it all up. Ctempleton3 (talk) 22:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These teams do a good job but this one is hardly notable. "Ranking 501 out of 112315 teams" is not an assertion of notability. It is even questionable whether "Ranking 1 out of 112315 teams" would be notable. --Bduke (talk) 00:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Architects Sketch

I am nominating all of the Monty Python Sketches listed here for deletion. These all have one of three verification statuses: A) None at all 2) A copy of the script 3) A link to the sketch on YouTube. Any sketch in the category of sketches that had any verification at all that was different that what I listed above was left out.

These articles are not notable; not every sketch by Monty Python is notable. They must each be notable in their own right: they must be significantly covered by independant, reliable sources. These however, are not.

In addition, these are all in very poor states verification-wise. There are no reliable sources.

Addendum: I know that normally mass nominations like this are usually bad. However, there is no reasonable justification in my mind, that any one of these articles would be kept and the rest deleted based on the current state of the article. They're all the same policy-wise. And I'd probably get yelled at if I listed twenty AfDs that were all the same. seresin ( ¡? ) 21:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Several Monty Python sketches as "train wreck - in any event, no consensus to delete them all, and no clear visibility to what the outcome of individual discussions would be based on this discussion." That AFD had several of these, but far fewer than this list. I suspect that outcome is likely to occur again. GRBerry 21:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I botched the templates on all the pages, so I'm currently trying to fix that. So I'll look at that AfD as soon as I fix things.... seresin ( ¡? ) 21:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GRBerry's comment was not about templates, but about the flawed logic of nominating so many articles in a batch AfD. Your templates can be perfect, but that doesn't change the inherent problem of this AfD.--Oakshade (talk) 01:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for Argument Sketch and Undertaker's Sketch Neutral for the rest. The Undertaker's Sketch is notable for the fact it wasn't broadcast after its initial airing. The Argument Sketch has notability outside the show (can't find any sources for that but I know there's some). The rest i'm neutral on. Doc Strange^{Mailbox Orbitting Black Hole}Strange Frequencies 21:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Quite a few of these are missing from the Python Wikia Sketches Category. Anything that is deleted here could be transwikied via GFDL. --Dhartung | Talk 22:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keeep/Merge - preserve as many as possible in whatever format gets through the issue of the repeated nominator - so that they are all not consigned to the dustbin - for the sake of preserving I would be prepared (in time) to combine/amalagamate/whatever so that at least a sample/view of the sketches - as they are increasingly historic snatches of an increasingly aged group of old sods - to methodically remove all is an unecessary act and should be avoided at all costs (as far as a monty python enthusiast of the past is concerned)- Satu Suro 23:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All - I just spent an hour cleaning up the Cheese Shop sketch at the outset of this purge. I expect that they all can be improved too but so many will take time. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't deal with media articles, so I won't vote. But how are these different from, say, episodes of The Simpsons, which I presume are considered notable? Other stuff exists, of course, but I'm not sure how this is any different. Nyttend (talk) 23:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a good amount of those episodes are notable in their own right. For instance, I believe that every episode in the eighth season is GA or FA. These, however, have no such qualifications. seresin ( ¡? ) 23:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's mostly recentism and systemic bias. These Monty Python episodes were produced in sixties when the internet did not exist and even colour TV was a novelty (there's a reference to it in the Architect's sketch). Colonel Warden (talk) 00:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - These are classic and historic sketches, some of which are recreated today all over the world in schools, on stages, youtube and any other kind of performance/media outlet. Just by choosing one of these sketches at random, Sam Peckinpah's "Salad Days,", a one second g-search turns up a CNN article about violence that uses the sketch in the article's opening as a prime (and comic) example of violence gone array [11]. This nomination is also an example of the absurdity of large batch nominations when editors are bound to have unlimited "keep"/"delete" combinations. --Oakshade (talk) 05:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then please add verification and notability-granting sources. Claiming that since one sketch has a brief mention in a news piece, they all are notable is absurd. They must all be notable, and verified. As for the mass-nom, they are all in the same state verification and notability-wise at the time of nomination. It is logical to include them in one nomination. Twenty different nominations would probably be deemed disruption. seresin ( ¡? ) 22:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By your use of "verification", I'm confused. Are you now charging that these articles fail WP:VERIFY? Twenty different nominations would actually not be a case of WP:DISRUPT. A useless large batch-AfD like this one is actually more disruptive than the former.--Oakshade (talk) 23:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They clearly fail WP:VERIFY. Each of the articles listed has no reliable sources. I disagree. Twenty AfDs with the exact same rationale would have been disruptive. seresin ( ¡? ) 23:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again an editor has misunderstood WP:VERIFY. A topic doesn't fail WP:VERIFY if the content is currently unverified, but only if the article topic is unverifiable. Content on many of the most popular sketches in history is by no means impossible to verify. If an article topic can be verified, WP:VERIFY is not by any means criteria for article deletion. --Oakshade (talk) 23:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All. As Nyttend points out, this is the sort of content that is usually considered perfectly acceptable (as with individual Simpsons episodes, Pokémon, and many many others). This isn't just pulling out isolated examples of other articles (which is what I assume WP:OTHER is talking about) -- this is the sort of thing that wikipedia does for pretty much anything that's as notable as Monty Python, so barring a major change in wikipedia policy, I think this should be treated the same way. Klausness (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what WP:OTHER says. Most of the articles you refer to should not have their own articles. They are not independantly notable, and most have verification problems. These articles are both not notable and have serious verification problems. Just because other articles have not been deleted/merged/redirected does not mean that these get a free pass. AfDs are to be discussed on the discussed articles' merits alone, not "since Similar Article X hasn't been deleted, these shouldn't be either". seresin ( ¡? ) 22:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - I'd argue that if every episode of The Simpsons is notable enough to have its own article then the memorable sketches from MPFC are sufficiently notable as well. The sketch articles definitely need to be improved to meet Wiki standards though. -- Hux (talk) 06:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, basically, since other thing have articles, these should too? seresin ( ¡? ) 04:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 03:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Kolowich

He got his name in the papers for a semi-licit business. But there's no evidence of an encyclopedia article to be written here that isn't just a news aggregate of a single media cycle (if that). Doc^g 21:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of independent sources. Guy (Help!) 22:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable Dreamspy (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are news articles spread over several years in the Google News Archive. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We are not a news aggregator, so can you please detail the special or ongoing significance that makes this encyclopedic, just pointing to a lot of news reports doesn't make your case.--Doc^g 21:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Notability guidelines don't talk about "special or ongoing significance", but they do talk about multiple independent references in reliable sources, which I have demonstrated to exist for this subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Notability is not arithmetic. The significance of sources needs to be assessed. Counting won't do. Arithmetical arguments are unlikely to convince many people.--Doc^g 08:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and needs different sources.--RyRy5 talk 01:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is not a good argument for deletion; the article meets WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. I don't see any BLP problems, though the article needs expansion so it can be a fuller biography. *** Crotalus *** 13:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS. Do you want a bio on every fellon who gets reported in the papers.--Doc^g 14:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Phil Bridger, being featured on the cover of the The Wall Street Journal seals the deal for me. (jarbarf) (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cover the event, if notable and I doubt this one is, not the person notable only for that one event. - Nabla (talk) 22:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One sentence does not an article make. Article is orphaned (and usually, an article is orphaned for a reason). Also: while a fellow editor cites WP:NOTNEWS (an essay), I find WP:NOT#NEWS (a section of policy) more appropriate. B.Wind (talk) 05:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Despite claims otherwise, there does not appear to be a sourcing problem, nor any compelling reason presented to delete. (This person is not a "ONEEVENT" candidate, BTW) - Ironic goat (talk) 08:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, completely unsourced. -- Naerii 23:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD G4 as recreation of material deleted through discussion. --jonny-m t 16:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frontline_Israel_Project

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Frontline Israel Project

Page is a substantial copy of previously deleted article--see decision at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Frontline_Israel . Delete Iamblessed (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snowball Keep --JForget 23:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady's High School, Motherwell

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Our Lady's High School, Motherwell

Beyond saving in terms of WP:MOS tone. Also, some hints of subject-attack in there, but not enough to warrant a {{db-attack}}. Two One Six Five Five ^τ_ʃ 20:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Eóin (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Weak Keep: ~~Subject's notability is questionable and there seems to be no interest in reformatting the article to conform to Wiki guidelines.~~ A few references have been added--article still needs serious de-peacocking but it seems like there are a few people willing to work on it. Iamblessed (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. The article had been systematically vandalised over a long period of time. I have put it back to the way it was before, and gutted some irrelevant and unverifiable trivia, however the unvandalised text is clearly a copy and paste of a promotional puff for the school. I tried to de-peacock it but it was hopeless. It would have to be rewritten from scratch. Before anybody attempts that, an independent demonstration of notability would be nice. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but only if rewritten to remove all puffery. I have tagged for rewrite. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep and obviously remove whatever material needs to be removed per our editing policies. A cursory search reveals plenty of reliable sources about the subject easily available online, but I still would not be opposed to a merge w/ North Lanarkshire or the like. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many of the claims in the article apparently check out, as badly written as it is. This really was the biggest secondary school in Scotland. Alumni include a Cardinal and a current MP. Interesting that easily checked notable alumni were apparently removed from the article. This article needs major cleanup, not deletion. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SCHOOL - Even though it's a primary school, it has notable coverage in some reliable sources (BBC) and has distinction by awards. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 21:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it is actually a secondary (high) school. TerriersFan (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to have enough notable coverage now, kudos to whoever started some WP:HEY work on it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - OK, I have cleaned it up. Having been the largest school in Scotland is an unequivocal claim to notability. The page has the sources need to meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above, this is an evidently notable secondary school. (jarbarf) (talk) 17:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best Believe It

Non-notable album, no valid references, no coverage in third party sources. Polly (Parrot) 20:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3 as hoax, so tagged. A search for the artist + title turns up nothing outside of Wikipedia; the album cover looks like a horrid MSPaint job; and MCA didn't exist in 2004 (it was merged into Decca in '03, save for the Nashville division, which I doubt would have released a heavy metal album). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't feel that it's a matter of WP:HOAX, but complete lack of verifiability and notability. If this is the case, then it fails WP:MUSIC album. [12] and [13] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisdom89 (talk • contribs)
Delete as a WP:HOAX. I can confirm TenPoundHammer's finding of a lack of Google hits for artist (the only two google hits are to Wikipedia). The major label that the creator of the article proclaims the record was released on stopped releasing music under that name in 2003. Doc Strange^{Mailbox Orbitting Black Hole}Strange Frequencies 21:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 22:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 22:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. If the article is correct if would be easy to find sources, also the reference provided is not relevant to the article. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 00:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete looks to be completely fake. Nuke it. --BrucePodger (talk) 00:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though someone has a wicked sense of humour. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 20:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. While TenPoundHammer makes a good point about one of the members being in a notable band, WP:MUSIC notes that redirects and the like are generally sufficient for this purpose, and the discussion below indicates that the articles fail the verifiability requirement and do not independently establish notability. --jonny-m t 02:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deathlike Silence (band)

Article is good but fails WP:MUSIC notability requirements. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 19:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 20:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to do a "delete per nom", you are the nom. I've also added a few related articles to this discussion. With that in mind, Weak keep; they do share a former member of Lordi, thus meeting criterion #6 of WP:MUSIC, but I'm not finding much in the way of sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Band is non-notable and thus fails WP:MUSIC. Why? [14]. The only ghits reveal myspace, youtube, and metal community websites/encyclopedias. These are just not reliable. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 21:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 22:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 22:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Technically passes WP:MUSIC per TenPoundHammer ~EdGl 23:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete last four one- or two-sentence articles as Two sentences do not an article make. Weak Delete on group article as there seems to be an attempt at some demonstration of notability, but the prose is more of a fan magazine than that of an encyclopedia. The addition of appropriate references and a more NPOV rewrite could salvage this article of a Finnish band. The connection with Lordi needs to be more explicitly stated in order to be closer to fulfilling WP:MUSIC. One cannot assert notability by connection with Lordi and downplay the connection at the same time. B.Wind (talk) 05:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no European tours, no top 10 hits, no evidence of cultural influence, no verifiability per Ghits, per WP:MUSIC. Bearian (talk) 22:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND, word. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 23:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Santos Perez Jr.

Subject is a police officer and chaplain who has won some departmental awards and has skills common to many police officers. No evidence of notability, serves as a bit of a coatrack for the Latin American Chaplains Association, no sources, no pages linking to it except a redirect to which nothing links seemingly created solely for the purpose of redirecting to this page. —Lowellian (reply) 19:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination summary. —Lowellian (reply) 19:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete [15] nothing in the news that is notable. Also, [16] shows nothing outside primary sources, wikis seem to be top hits. This article fails WP:BIO. I don't see any reliable secondary coverage...I also couldn't come up with any hint of awards. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 22:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, surprisingly. Sandstein (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Sueppel

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Steven Sueppel

Other than the fact that the person in question is in court so far and has supposedly been accused of another crime there is no reason to believe at this point that this person has actually committed a crime and the main sources offer no other information on this person's notability. Xtreme racer (talk) 19:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)

Keep Steven Sueppel's actions are in many ways more horrific than those of Manson, Dahlmer or any of the now-famous mass-murderers. After all, he wasn't killing strangers -- he brutally killed his entire family with a baseball bat. If any person ever fit the heading of "mass-murderer", it's Sueppel. Piperpathfinder (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article should be kept. Especially for those that these events have personally impacted, and for anyone that can relate to simular events. I would offer that anyone that feels it should be deleted, but was not directly affected by this, first of all cannot speak for those that were by calling it "minor", and rather than delete the article, just don't read it.

After reading Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts), I agree with you. The Steven Sueppel page should be deleted.

The killings have been #1 or #2 result on US Google news all day today (http://news.google.com/nwshp?tab=wn&topic=n), so it may still be appropriate to start an article about the event (instead of the person). williameis (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While this is certainly tragic, shocking, and currently newsworthy, Steven Sueppel is not notorious enough to be a wikipedia subject. If any murder could be considered notable enough, there would be tens of thousands of pages dedicated to nutcases who murdered their families. Iowamutt (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. BLP doesn't apply if he's dead. While some editors consider multiple murders not notable, embezzlement on the scale alleged by prosecutors is difficult and relatively uncommon, two things which argue in favor of its notability. --Eastmain (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a mass murder and suicide. The article should no more be deleted than Manson or klebold and harris. John celona (talk) 23:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Comparing this to Manson or Columbine is absurd. Those were huge, front page national stories that were talked about for weeks and are still talked about 40 and (almost) 10 years later, respectively. Will you see entire documentaries devoted to psychoanalysis of this case in the years to come? Ha. Heck, this isn't even considered the top story in the country today. Iowamutt (talk) 00:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete, the subject seems to just barely squeak by on notability. But I think the point brought up by Iowamutt is valid. I can, however, see a college student writing a paper on murderers and needing the reference. But because it is minor, perhaps it could be part of a list of "semi-notable" murders that put into a list as a whole then become full-fledged notable...I hope that makes sense. --Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 02:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to the WP:Guide_to_deletion: "Any notability of the crime is not automatically inherited by the victims or perpetrators of such crimes, and articles should not automatically be created on these individuals...." He does not meet the other criteria for inclusion. The crimes are appropriate for inclusion in Wikinews Wells50 (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously conforms to WP:N, and is a newsworthy story both for his history in the bank and the murder. ephix (talk) 00:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Ephix. --RucasHost (talk) 11:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no sense in wikilawyering over this. No Harm is being inflicted here so for me its a keeper. Albion moonlight (talk) 12:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/rename Afet reading the notability guidelines for crimes, I think this should probably be an article about the event with a few details about Sueppel included. Aar☢n Bruce^Talk/_Contribs 15:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per John celona and Ephix. The article tells about a notable incident. --Appletrees (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alex Heaton. I want to know more about him. Why are his kids asian? Are they adopted? --Appletrees (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexheat (talk • contribs) [reply]
Keep/Rename per Aaron Bruce. David in DC (talk) 17:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alex Heaton and others, this easily satisfies all of our guidelines for inclusion. (jarbarf) (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Oliver Keenan (talk) 15:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Another editor has created a related article, Iowa City Sueppel Murders. --Eastmain (talk) 05:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:HEY, WP:N. Needs more sources for verification of some sections. Keeps' arguments are better than the deletes', and the trend has been in favor. Not my thing, but it does not violate policies. Bearian (talk) 21:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of James Bond allies in Die Another Day

AfDs for this article:

Article consists solely of plot, production minutae, and trivia; it has zero reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, which are necessary for both Wikipedia's verifiability and notability requirements.

I originally {{prod}}ded the article, [17] which was reverted by Ultraviolet scissor flame (talk · contribs) w/o edit summary. [18] Tangentially, I also {{prod}}ded sub-article Giacinta "Jinx" Johnson which was deleted; same user recreated as Giacinta 'Jinx' Johnson which I also include in this nomination for the same rationale. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually there are now 8 references and this is a tiny fraction of what could be written about them. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 16:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's better, but only the Berry one and the Madonna one are even tangentially about the character; at best, they describe the actor and at worst they describe Uma Thurman instead. I'd support merging those two referenced facts; the rest should still be deleted. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Certainly does not qualify a list of allies for every James Bond movie in existence.--WaltCip (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Must agree with nominator, the lack of secondary sources and general information of the article make this article nothing more than a list that could be integrated into the main article of the film. Xtreme racer (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 22:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Die Another Day. Characters weren't in the books, so they don't have obvious notability, but I think someone can unmerge it one day if someone's interested enough in Halle Berry and Michael Madsen's contributions to Bond lore. Alientraveller (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conditional keep I have been interested in Halle Berry but found only one source for Jinx. If more are available on every character then keep, otherwise speedy redirect to film. Ultra! 15:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Finally keep Sources are in. Ultra! 14:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Merging might bloat the parent article - although I suppose it could be trimmed. However, per WP:LIST, this article is satisfactory. It would just need to be referenced and written from a neutral point of view. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 23:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references to independent sources. Overuse of non-free images. The JPS ^{talk to me} 10:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overuse of non-free images? Then be bold and remove the images. No references is sign for improvement, not deletion. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 16:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just expand with encyclopedic information that isn't just primarily in universe. This is possible and mergin with the main article would bloat it unnecesarily. Consistency is needed and by deleting this page then bascially you are saying why not delete every page on the chaarcters which would be a very unfortunate thing to do. I suggest you keep the tags and request that referenced information is added which doesn't just relate in universe ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 16:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article consists of plot from Die Another Day, and is duly appropriate there. If merging that film's plot back into its own article would "bloat it unnecesarily" [sic], then that says that the plot needs to be trimmed, not that we should expand it into it's own separate article. It's been neigh 17 months since this article began failing basic Wikipedia tenants of being referenced with reliable secondary sources that evidence notability; if not yet, when will this actually constitute an article and not a plot and image dumping ground? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I don't like your deletionist approach to content however inadequate it is. This isn't the first time you've tried your hands at deleting something film related. I agree however that it shouldn't have been sitting there for 17 months without developing ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 19:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That non sequitur seems like a very poor means of countering Thor's otherwise good post.--WaltCip (talk) 01:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Notability" is not a Wikipedia "tenant", nor is WP:PLOT. Don't be ridiculous. And if you want secondary sources, here's over 180 of them. Stop wasting our time. --Pixelface (talk) 04:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment maybe you should take a look at a similar AFD. igordebraga ≠ 03:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously a sub-article of Die Another Day and perfectly consistent with the other articles in Category:Lists of James Bond allies. WP:PLOT doesn't even belong in WP:NOT, "trivia" is not against policy. And correct me if I'm wrong, but Die Another Day has been reviewed by over 180 film critics[19]. Those are reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject and can be used to expand the article. And "notability" is actually not a requirement. --Pixelface (talk) 04:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment if notability isn't a requirement then why do we have the policy that non-notable articles should be deleted? Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 04:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is debating about the notability of Die Another Day itself. The question is, why do we have a sub-article about it? We could have multiple sub-articles about different aspects of the film. We could describe the locations in detail, the vehicles in detail, the weapons in detail, and the character in detail -- all using nothing but in-universe information. However, WP:PLOT clearly indicates that in-universe information should be supported by real-world context. The characters in this article are elements of this film. They are not analyzed in depth; they are perceived as part of the film in criticism of it. This is information that could be a wonderful part of a James Bond Wikia, and we could use Wikipedia to explore real-world context about the topic. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not have a sub-article? Sub-articles are usually created because an article got too long. If you don't want a sub-article then merge this into Die Another Day. We gain nothing by blindly following WP:PLOT to the letter. There are over 180 reviews of the film and if you want to, you can add whatever real-world context you want to this article. Nobody's stopping you. Of course the characters are part of the film. That's why those reviews apply to this list as well as the film article. Film critics don't just say whether a film is worth watching or not. They often analyze various people's roles in the film. Nobody's stopping you from writing about these characters on Wikia. Go ahead. --Pixelface (talk) 10:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 04:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 04:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid entry in the allies/henchmen/allies/villains collection of the James Bond films. Articles like this are useful to prevent the spawning of articles for each character, and bloating the main film article. If I recall there was talk of a spin-off film of Jinx, so real-world context of the main subject in this article is not impossible. --Canley (talk) 07:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a perfectly discriminatory list. It's simply a representation of information elsewhere on the wiki which is notable and verifiable per the many reviews of the film, presented in a different form. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 10:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without merging. These characters are not famous beyond a single film, thus there is no reason to have a sub-article of nothing but plot detail. If there needs to be clarification about the background of a specific character, it can be mildly expanded at Die Another Day#Cast, though it could definitely use some real-world context about each character and role. This sub-article clearly violates WP:PLOT. There should not be this much information about the film without any context around it. If the characters were recurring beyond this one film, then perhaps a case could be argued. However, this article is nothing more than plot detail and also abuses WP:NFC in having non-free images that are used for characters whose significance are hardly declared. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good list, sub-article. Can be referenced. Time should be given for referencing, as there is no deadline. Ursasapien (talk) 09:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment except for the Berry quote, there's no real-world commentary or analysis here to reference. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no merge. There's exactly one sourced statement, which belongs on Halle Berry's page - and is already there; the rest has no real-world coverage whatsoever, and doesn't belong anywhere, whether on this page or as a section of another. As such, the disputed spinout guidelines don't apply. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually there are now 8 references and this is a tiny fraction of what could be written about them. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 16:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If anything, mention of these people belongs in the main article. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well it looks much better than it looked a few hours back. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Several of the characters have independent notability, as per recently added references. It may be possible in the future that content on some of the characters who are not independently notable may be merged back into the main article, but that is an entirely separate thing. John Carter (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Everything notable isnt necessarily encyclopedic. No RS sources specifically discuss the subject 'List of James Bond's allies in Die Another day'. There is nothing like encyclopedicity by association. Just because Die another Day is encyclopedic, doesnt mean every triviality about it becomes worthy of its own article. Merge all this info into some other article if you will, but this article by itself is simply contrived fancruft. Sarvagnya 22:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I would hardly call the wikipedia we have today a traditional encyclopedia anyway to be honest its developed far too much and in far too much detail in places for that. What written encyclopedia would have articles on most films and characters? If wikipedia was a conventional encyclopedia several hundred thousand articles would be thrown out like that. Wikipedia is here to provide information on all branches of knowledge from the deadly serious to the seemingly trivial but it is information all the same and all content must be useful to somebody in some form. This is what makes it so unique in that we don't have the restrictions of a paper encyclopedia and can cover more topics and in more detail than any other encyclopedia could possibly hope to achieve. Now I fully agree that there ar emany articles I think should not be included in wikipedia. Personally I have a loathing for Pokemon and manga but that doesn't make me want to axe all of their articles down an afd because I don't consider them "encyclopedic". I;m sure they are useful articles to somebody and this is what wikipedia is about. They provide information in my view about a trivial and "unencyclopedic" subject but they still provide information and know-how to somebody, however young or old. " Everything notable isnt necessarily encyclopedic" is one of the poorest quotes I've ever seen in the history of wikipedia. It is precisely the task of an "encyclopedia" to make some decision on what is notable and to include it at the expense of what we consider not notable. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 12:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information -- even if it were to be useful to someone somewhere. What is next? Wardrobe of all allies of James Bond in Die Another Day? I'm sure somebody somewhere will be interested in it. There has got to be something called encyclopedicity. Sarvagnya 19:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh be reasonable. There are reasonable boundaries to what is utterly absurd and what is just about acceptable for wikipedia; don't twist my words again. You wouldn't even have commented here if you hadn't have found John and Shahid had commented here. Since when have you ever cared about anything other than carnatic music and literature and "copywrighted" bollywood images and POV? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on content, not on contributors. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 22:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, kind of a standard to have these pages for James Bond pages, no point deleting one... The Dominator (talk) 04:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand I don't doubt for a second that notability exists, secondary sources do exist commenting on the characters with the Rotten Tomatoes reviews providing a treasure trove of information - certainly every character in the list will be mentioned by a number of those reviews. I'm aware that notability from the film and series (which are obviously notable) is not inherited, but then with secondary sources being available it does exist it just needs to be proven.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 22:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the an article for all the characters. ; but I mean truly merge, not eliminate, or reduce to the single line on the "cast" section of the present article. incorporating most of the material here. The reason for not keeping it separate is that the list is not too long --there are only about a dozen significant characters-- so we dont need separate articles for the 2 sides. There's usually a compromise solution. I still havent figured out why people working on these topics dont take them, or take them and try to subvert them. DGG (talk) 05:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I merged it yesterday and it looks ridiculously bloated in the main article. The sister article is highly appropriate ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 10:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rupert Bradshaw

Actor of marginal notability. He's either 16 or 17 years old so, in my mind, the potential BLP issues also weigh in for deletion. Note also that the article is essentially written as an advertisement. Pichpich (talk) 19:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 22:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There may be some notability, but it needs sources to verify that he was involved in the various television episodes, stage shows, and movies he is said to appear in. The laundry list of what appears to be everyone invovled in his first West End performance doesn't help. -- saberwyn 23:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images of Croydon

Belongs on the Commons not here. (Too bad for those images which have been uploaded here! All mine are on the Commons - smug grin.) I have done a crude copy&paste of the article to here on the Commons to show that the majority of images are already there. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Either building discussion would go in Architecture of Croydon, or the images go to Commons. This is not what one expects of an article here. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and above. Copy the images over if possible. Think outside the box 20:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - its more than just photos, its writing too. More than can go on Commons. Pafcool2 (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an image gallery. Any text that is of value really belongs on the Croydon page. -- Whpq (talk) 16:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - it looks like a lot of this information and some of the images could be inserted into both the London borough and suburb\town articles. Simply south (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Like Pafcool2 said it has more than just images on the page. And to what Simply south said, all of these images would'nt be able to fit on the london borough/town page. Siemens2 (talk) 17:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I note that this user is either Pafcool2 or someone closely related to him. Each userpage links back to the other one. As per Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, "Closely connected users may be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes if they edit towards the same objectives." I think this is clearly the case here so this is effectively a duplicate vote and can probably be disregarded. Adambro (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - images should be in commons and the text should be in the relevant articles. MilborneOne (talk) 22:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MilborneOne. Adambro (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as non-notable Web content (A7). Author blocked as an apparent role account. Blueboy 96 21:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AAfter Toolbar

Non-notable, advertisment created by someone with a conflict of interest. Contested prod. KTC (talk) 19:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The creator contested G11 speedy nomination by someone else with "I believe this information is as useful [or more] as the information about Google Toolbar or Advanced Toolbar for the Wikipedia users. This toolbar is one of its kind so far privacy is concerned. This is the first browser based toolbar that has no monitoring server attcahed to it. Browser based similar toolbars discussed in the Wikipedia so far all have monitoring servers attached to it. I request not to delete the article without investigating." -- KTC (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Was just about to nominate this, you beat me to it. COI and WP:N concerns here. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:13, 24 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Delete I tagged it as CSD#G11, but it failed. Delete per Equazcion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it was speedied as spam; I declined it because it seemed factual, not advertising. I have no opinion on whether it is significant, --and of course COI is not by itself enough reason to delete. DGG (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to disagree there -- this does seem a lot like advertising to me. There's also absolutely no notability established. And of course the COI. I'm not sure how anyone could argue to keep this, barring editing the article. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:43, 24 Mar 2008 (UTC)
- I just checked out the download.com page. This toolbar is just over a month old with just under 100 downloads so far. This is a definite case of advertising IMO. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:48, 24 Mar 2008 (UTC)

This privacy browser toolbar is around over two years. It has recently been added to the download.com. Regards, --Aafter (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Subhankar Ray I edited the article to focus on facts. Hope that will make it more useful for the visitors. Help me out in editing it if you think it still feels like an advertisement. This is no more or less advertisement than Google or other toolbars we have in Wikipedia--Aafter (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy A7 The JPS ^{talk to me} 19:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AMISH SUPER SQUAD

WP:CRYSTAL and WP:MOVIE. No notability. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 19:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's already been deleted under CSD.--NAHID 19:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And this message caused an edit conflict when closing this. grrr ;) The JPS ^{talk to me} 19:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 03:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Illinois corn flake

Not-notable, un-encyclopedic. There should be a speedy cat for stuff like this. ukexpat (talk) 18:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. CSD: Perhaps unpatented nonsense? Delete per nom. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I did check the G1 criteria and I don't think this qualifies as "patent nonsense" or "unsalvagebly incoherent", or maybe I am being too generous... – ukexpat (talk) 19:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Which is why I propose unpatented nonsense. ;-) - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Non-notable and un-encyclopedic. Paste (talk) 18:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. I have a soda cracker that bears an uncanny resemblance to the shape of Colorado. Wonder if it's worth something. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still delete, though somewhat weaker than before. At the suggestion of TenPoundHammer, I had another look at the offered sources. It does seem that the cornflake has achieved some level of public notoriety in neutral, third party sources. It still strikes me as fairly ephemeral, the sort of thing that would be used as filler in a print newspaper. Wikipedia is not Ripley's Believe It or Not! By all means transwiki this to Wikinews, which is the Wikimedia project where this sort of material belongs. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Its all facts and made many newspapers, it made newspapers here in ireland and was definitely a big stroy in Chicago, why not have it in this encyclopedia, it tells the story of someone who used the net for a real benefit and that sums up everyones goals. I say fair play to the girls and the story should stay.

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=6023477

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/856338,flake032208.article

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-odd-illinois-corn-flake,1,3301419.story

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gianniclifford (talk • contribs)

Delete Those sources are all perfectly fine; however, I feel that this still falls under WP:NOT#NEWS. People sell crazy stuff on eBay all the time; we don't need a Wikipedia article for every single nutbar eBay auction. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Its notable because of the amount paid for a cornflake, and all the press it got. Not just local media attention. Its also not everyday type news.[20][21][22][23]AlbinoFerret (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As much as my otters want to trust the judgment of a ferret (mustelid bias), they and I still aren't quite convinced that the amount of coverage "goes beyond the context of a single event". Nonetheless, I'm still changing to Neutral pending further research. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if the above sources are added to the article, I may be persuaded to withdraw the nom. – ukexpat (talk) 21:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to rewrite it but I'm really having a hard time. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:NOT#NEWS, sources or not. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 22:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Commment - Hasn't there been a consensus to place any "flagged for rescue" tag on talk pages, rather than on article pages, in order not to generate a false impression of dispute? --B. Wolterding (talk) 23:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I moved the rescue tag to the talk page per Template:Rescue. – ukexpat (talk) 12:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Consensus changed to allow the {{rescue}} to be used in mainspace. Fosnez (talk) 09:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If you liked the "Skittles incident" article, you'll love the Illinois corn flake article. I suppose this is "historical" if you can't remember what happened last week.... Mandsford (talk) 23:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Something that makes big news likethis must stay, do you guys think Wiki is ruining out of room that a small page like this cant stay.. KEEP KEEP KEEP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.191.126 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 25 March 2008

Delete Wikipedia is not a news outlet. This is classic "news of the weird", and will be forgotten by next week. --Phirazo 17:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Any chance this could be transwikied to WikiNews? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It rates a mention in the article about Ebay... I think it's like every other week that we get a story about something really bizarre that's offered for sale there, and that someone's crazy enough to bid on, like a severed head. It's always good publicity for Ebay. Mandsford (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename either food collecting or cornflake collecting. In the past decade people have started collecting processed food with interesting shapes, and this cornflake is merely the latest publicized example. Nobody will remember the name of the cornflake, except collectors of cornflakes.jonathon (talk) 00:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep you will all hate me for this, but WP:N defines notability as: Significant coverage by multiple Reliable Secondary Sources Independent of the subject.. I have rewitten the article with sources and a couple of {{fact}} templates where I couldn't find them quickly. Fosnez (talk) 08:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment I removed the {{fact}} templates as I have added sources to cover them too - Fosnez (talk) 08:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This belongs to be beside the French toast that seems to have the picture of Jesus Christ. It has already had its 15 minutes of fame. B.Wind (talk) 05:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has 3rd party sources, the ebay and the money make it so. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, delete, delete; utterly trivial, unencyclopedic incident. Yes, there is "coverage", but it's ephemeral "news of the weird" type stuff, like tortillas with the face of Jesus, and all this will be forgotten by midsummer. --MCB (talk) 06:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I simply cant choose a side on this one. One one hand, it's notalble but on the other hand its absurd. I'm leaning more towards keep, however, part of me wants it to kill the article with fire. Dusti^{talk to me} 18:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yesterday's news, not notable and for the ages, not even for next month. Fame is fleeting for a flake. Bearian (talk) 22:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Half Dozen

Non-notable band - makes assertion so A7 can't apply. Didn't want to prod. fails WP:MUSIC Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 18:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 18:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 18:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC. The JPS ^{talk to me} 18:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient notability. All article says is that they opened for The Vagrants. ~EdGl 23:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flashbax

Considering the song is only a B side, it is likely undeserving of its own article per WP:MUSIC songs. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 18:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 18:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was merited, as it could be a part of the collection of Oasis songs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Oasis_songs)? Kidmercury (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)kidmercury[reply]

Yeah, I understand your position. But per the notability guideline for songs, if the criteria cannot be met, then usually they are deleted or merged into an appropriate article - in this case perhaps an Oasis discography or an album. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 18:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not really about notability, it's just that there doesn't seem to be much to say about it with third party reliable sources. We are not a directory of songs. The JPS ^{talk to me} 18:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:MUSIC: Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; permanent stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. This song does not meet any of those criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Given the last clause of what you quoted, why do you say delete instead of merge? —Quasirandom (talk) 22:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's the editor's prerogative really. "Should merge" is different than "must be merged". Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 23:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge' to parent album article.--Rtphokie (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Love & Pain (album)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Love & Pain (album)

No sources are giving proving the existance of this future album by Toni Braxton. All of it is complete speculation. Admc2006 (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 18:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete, clearly bogus... – Alensha ^talk 17:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails verifiability with the absence of WP:RS. Fails WP:MUSIC as well. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 18:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Wisdom89, wikipedia is not a crystal ball--Rtphokie (talk) 20:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Steele (footballer)

Middlesbrough youth footballer with no appearances in a fully professional league, fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN. Angelo (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Angelo (talk) 18:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN. Paste (talk) 18:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does not meet the clear notability standard required for an article as a pro. footballer at this moment in time. KTC (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:BIO#Athletes. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 22:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BanRay 16:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7. Me! Me! Let's write a funny article about meeeee!!!! NawlinWiki (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Horn

NN person. No refs. Lots of nonsense. Was prod'd, but it seems to degenerating into something more hoax-like, so I'm bringing it to AfD for speedy action. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Richard75 (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverifiable. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Speedy delete Per the later edits under the personal life section. I tagged it for SD, and then the article was changed to assert WP:NOTE. I then prod'd it failing WP:CSD#A7. Most of it is probably fabricated or at least un-notable, eg. the early life section. PeterSymonds | talk 18:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sourcing concerns, notability Lawrence § t/e 18:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nonsense - the originator's later edit under "Personal Life" abandons any grip on reality with talk of the North Pole, Nobel prize etc. JohnCD (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --jonny-m t 02:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mathilde DeCagny

Delete Not independently notable per WP:BIO, just a dog trainer even if some of those dogs have become notable. Ave Caesar (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. —STTW (talk) 18:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Artcile needs to be expanded. Special dog training issues should be covered in the article, which actually make her trained dogs different and notable. I have added some references, would expand shortly. --STTW (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, while the dogs she has trained may be notable, she is not and does not deserve her own article. You have not provided any sources that make her the primary subject per WP:BIO. --Ave Caesar (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess not all dog trainers have notable dogs, so there is definately something about her which needs to be mentioned. As I said before, perhaps more info on her specific dog training issues. --STTW (talk) 08:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While some of her "clients" are noteworthy, they don't impart notability to her. A mention of her name in the dogs' articles will be sufficient.B.Wind (talk) 05:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability is not inherited. Are there any other cites out there? Bearian (talk) 22:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Beyton --JForget 23:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beyton Middle School

Non notable middle school. If not a deletion perhaps a merge into Beyton? Paste (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Beyton per established precedent. Mergers do not require an AfD and this need not have come here. TerriersFan (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't disagree with Merge/redirect to Beyton as suggested by TerriersFan but to imply that I am wasting time by bringing this to AfD is harsh. Wikipedia even has a category 'Middle schools in England' so by no means are all redirected or merged! Paste (talk) 17:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Beyton. I agree that the "mergers do not require an AfD" comment is probably unnecessary and definitely inaccurate. I would discourage anyone from taking it upon themselves to do a merger and a transformation of a person's article into a redirect. Paste's action is more preferable than the "be obnoxiously bold" approach. Mandsford (talk) 18:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would discourage anyone from bringing merge proposals to AfD. If you're not feeling BOLD, put a merge tag on it, discuss it on the talk page, or bring it to Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect as usual. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per TerriersFan. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the appropriate school district/town as outline in WP:SCHOOL. This primary school is not notable enough to warrant an article on its own. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 22:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Wisdom89. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per everyone else. (jarbarf) (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 03:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DoubleJay Creative

does not meet WP:CORP, most if not all of the awards are non-notable commercial awards that you pay to get, they have no notability of its own, and they are used to inflate artificially the award list Enric Naval (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your assertion that most or all of the awards are paid commercial awards is just false. The Telly, the Emmy, the Davey and the CASE II are all merit-based awards which were awarded to DoubleJay. I don't know exactly what you mean by "inflate artificially the award list," but considering that there are multiple secondary-source articles about DJC and it's an award-winning international company with widespread notoriety in the south, I think it qualifies as having noteriety of its own (for an example of a lesser-sourced article on a similar company which was allowed to stay, see AC Entertainment). I would not have included quite so many links (esp. regarding awards) if I wasn't trying to clearly illustrate notoriety. I would be happy to revise the page if someone would offer some constructive criticism as to how to make it better fit the notoriety guidelines. However, I do NOT think that this page deserves a full deletion-- DJC is one of the fastest-growing, best-known companies in Knoxville and is worthy of inclusion. Dingstersdie (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so, Telly is prestigious enough, but the others you mention are way less prestigious than Telly. "widespread notoriety in the south" should be sourced. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument is not an argument against deletion.
I put in doubt the notability of all those awards, and anyone can check their pages and see how they make you pay for entering the "competition", pay if you want to receive the award, and the total lack of explaining of criteria for giving awards, and how hundreds of companies are awarded the same award. I also want to see some notable secondary sources for the notability of those awards, and I just nominated today the wikipedia article of one of those awards here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Telly Awards‎, and you can see how it does not have sources since December 2006 (I assume that because there isn't any on the first place, other than companies being grateful for having been awarded).
The criteria for staying on wikipedia is WP:CORP, not how important the company is at their home city.

--Enric Naval (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and trim. See my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Telly Awards for context. The Telly is not notable nor based on much merit; but the repeated coverage in Knoxville News Sentinel is passable, and several other WP:RS round it out. An exceeding amount of nonencyclopedic trivia must be removed and/or recast, but there is still a core remaining after that. "First film ever to be entirely shot and edited digitally"? Cut or recast with wikilinks, the source has many more qualifiers than that. John J. Bulten (talk) 21:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, those are not enough. Per WP:CORP, first paragraph, "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be attributable". I only found incidental mentions of lists of awards that look like regurgitations of press releases from local companies. Also notice Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance.". Worthy of being noted is not stablished by mentions deep on filler articles. the only "real" articles that actually talk of the company's notability are, when looked at, actually about how its CEO (not his company) helped build an ice rink on their city [24] and helped raise funds for a music school [25]. This establish notability for their CEO, not for his company. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All other sources appear to have the same problem. On the metropulse article [26] that is on the first paragraph of the major projects section, the focus of the article is Bijou theatre, and they are only mentioning doublejay once as producer of a video of the theatre. The very first reference on the article only talks about the CEO of the company [27], etc, etc, etc. I see not even one link that complies with WP:CORP --Enric Naval (talk) 16:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think you read the articles carefully enough. Certainly, there are some articles linked on the page that are filler or mention awards in passing. However, this[28] News-Sentinel article, which you claim is ONLY about the founder-- though it is technically about him, if you read the text it is all about the company, and he was chosen for the 40 under 40 almost solely for his DJC work. In regards to the ice rink, which you claim was built by the CEO and is unrelated to the company-- that is just incorrect. Holidays on Ice was run by DJC for its first two years of operation, until a non-profit, Center City Events, was created under the umbrella of DJC to administrate it. DJC is still extremely involved in the running of and advertising for the rink. So, these articles DO establish notability. Continuing in that vein, this [29] article is about nothing but DoubleJay Creative and the learning curve of founding a small business. I don't think you can claim that that article doesn't establish notability-- in a creative company with few employees, obviously the founder and the projects are going to be mentioned by name in press far more frequently than, perhaps, a large company which would tend to be written about as an amorphous business. I mean, take the MetroPulse article on the Bijou. Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice..."Obviously it by itself would not be enough to establish notability-- however, it seems fairly safe to assume that DJC was both notable enough to be written about and has attracted enough notice that Jack Neely, a Knoxville historian, interviewed them without needing to explain in-depth who the company is.

I don't have time at this exact moment to continue in this vein, but I have more to say. I also plan to work on the page to cut down on the trivia, etc. I just wanted to reiterate that this page is notable and deserves to be included in the wiki, and to set the record straight on some of the errors made above. There is enough notability here to let the article stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dingstersdie (talk • contribs) 18:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article promotional in nature, rather than NPOV. Upon first reading, it seemed very close to speedy territory. I'm not addressing whether or not it complies with WP:CORP. This needs to be scraped clean and started anew if there is a fighting chance of hanging onto it. B.Wind (talk) 05:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I managed to save the Telly Awards article despite lack of independient RS sources by asserting notability by other means and having consensus on keeping it. In the case of this article, however, consensus is a bit lacking and the company itself is still too small, local and young to be notable. The CEO activities still seem to be its greatest claim to notability, and the coverage is only on Knoxville's local newspapers. Number of employees is too small to be notable as employer. Their activities have only local coverage, which is related to charity work engaged by its CEO, not coverage of the enterprise itself. (Actually, it seems that the CEO is more notable than the company itself). Telly Awards is 28 years old and had problems to survive a nomination based on notability. If this company is growing so fast, it will be able to achieve notability faster, and survive nomination then. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Damn, nothing but POV, not even considering problems passing WP:N. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 23:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Nominator is now convinced and retracted nomination. Consensus agrees and so do I. Bduke (talk) 04:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Telly Awards

non-notable award, no sources since december 2006, it's a pay-to-get-one award and not a real award and as such it has no relevance as a real award, This should be judged by the standards for WP:CORP, which doesn't meet Enric Naval (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC) NOMINATION RETRACTED --Enric Naval (talk) 01:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1st note to nomination To assess wether the awards are actually a simple commercial operation or a real award based on merit, let's look at their fact sheet [30] the percentage of winners is between 25% and 35% between silver and bronze. This fact was removed from the article [31]. The same edit also removed "A recent EBay listing offers a Telly Award winning video of a fish tank" (lol). Their "why enter" page [32] states (reason #3)Impress and amaze your clients (...) "Telly Award-winning" validates your superior work and gives your clients and prospects the confidence they need to invest in your services.. Now, let's remember this: the site claims to have 13,000 entries and have 25%-35% winners, but there is no independient verification of this. They could easily be hiding that they are having 4,000 entries and awarding 100% and we have no way whatsover of verifying it. Adenda: and this guy also claims to have won a telly with another outrageous video [33] --Enric Naval (talk) 22:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2nd note to nomination I remind you that the nomination is based on non-compliance with wikipedia criteria for notablity (mainly, the lack of any WP:RS reliable source that stablishes notability, and that this issue needs to be addresed in order to save the article. I'll be happy to retract my nomination as soon as at least two independent/reliable/verifiable/notable secondary sources addressing this are provided. There are many mention on Google News, but they are not independient (press releases by winners bragging about it) --Enric Naval (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3nd note to nomination I asked for WP:CORP rules to be used to assess the notability of the article, but at any time any another editor can claim that other ways of assessment should be used. So far, some other standards have been suggested, but none was relaying on any wikipedia policy. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4th note to nomination I put in doubt any claim of "uniqueness" or "originality" of this award as reason for notability. I found very similar award schemes called Aurora award [34] and Aegis awards [35], both of them with very similar websites, process, fees, . There are also other awards that claim equal or superior notability, like Golden Pyramid award [36] who awarded 48 awards on 2002 and claims to be on the level of Emmy and Oscar [37], and which equally provide no independient confirmation of that notability. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up both the Aegis and Aurora awards and they're not as old as the Telly Awards. The Aegis Awards seems to be in its 19th year and I can't find anything about the Aurora Awards age but it seems to me they're actually even newer than the Aegis. The Telly Awards by comparison are 30 years old. If there are similarities that suggests to me these awards are copying the Tellys which alone would attest to the notability of the Telly Awards.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, if there are sources that stablish those similarities, then those would attest to the notability. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I will accept that everyone copied their website from Telly. I will later check the ___domain registration dates and webarchive.org. For now. I'll point to the Communicator awards, who copied the Telly website and forgot to edit the name out on one page [38] (lol, wtf) I'm actually more and more biased towards keep. Still need some secondary independient source for retraction of nomination --Enric Naval (talk) 00:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adenda: Another similar award, Davey award, notice the striking similaritis on format of winner list [[39]], website design and name of menues, similar list of categories which is later identified on the winner by numeric codes, and then they never tell anywhere the relationship category to code so it's impossible to know on what cetegory they won [40], bad website (the "enter work" page is a 404, and clicking on enter work on the menu redirects to "contact us". Fees for 2008 competition are not displayed, but fees for statues on 2005 were $150, same as Telly and Aurora awards [41] --Enric Naval (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Davey awards appear to only be three years old.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So? It's still a similar award, and it has the same number of notable sources mentioning it: zero. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adenda: another similar one [42], massive winner list that does not even list the category the award was won in [43] omfg, it lists the same percentages of bronze and silver winners as Telly awards: "the top 10% of winning entries will receive Gold trophies, and the top 25% of winning entries will receive Silver trophies". [44]

This one doesn't even appear to be the same. It appears to be geared entirely towards logos and designs, and doesn't include anything more.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On their category page [45] they list, among others, "New Media & Web Design - NM", "Illustration, Photography & Typography - IP", "Commercials, TV & Radio - TR", "Film & Video - FV" and "Political - PO". It's true that each award has details that the others don't, but the amount of stuff that they do have in common is staggering --Enric Naval (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5th note to nomination As a comparison, look at IFP Independent Spirit Awards website where you can become one of the judges and there is an actual physical awarding ceremony and delineates on its FAQ page a clear process for election of winners [46] and which at least have *some* coverage [47]--Enric Naval (talk) 16:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6th note to nomination Statues made by the same manufacturer, and their claims make painfully obvious that the only notable awards being produced there are Emmy, Oscar and Clio. The Telly awards say "Each Telly statuette is hand made by the craftsman at RS Owens, the same firm that produces the Oscar and the Emmy Awards." [48]. The Aurora awards say "The statues are cast in the same foundry that creates the Emmy, Oscar and Clio statues". Damn, the aegis info is in a private area, the Golden Pyramid info is unavailable, and Creativity awards are made by a different manufacturer....

7th note to nomination I found the 2000 version of their website [49], and it actually looks legit, and cites David E. Carter as show administrator "He has published over 75 books on advertising and logos. (...) (Clio winner,7-time Emmy winner who produced many sketches for the Johnny Carson show)". I wouldn't dispute that fact, even if no sources are provided. Does not provide notability for itself, but it helps (dunno why the actual website does not mention this, maybe it's buried somewhere on their page) --Enric Naval (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A google search of the Telly Awards brings up a few mentions in media [50] [51] [52][53] AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- reply - look more closely; the first and fourth are reproductions of the same press release by a "winner"; the middle two are websites of the "winners" bragging about their awards. This is a vanity operation; the article will either need to be killed, or drastically edited to make the vanity aspect much clearer, with modifications to our notability standards to make it clearer that "Telly-winning" is not a valid claim to notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I asked twice on the talk page there a month ago for some independent sourcing, and have not yet had a response there. Its easy for people in an industry to give each other awards. I'd really like to get something established about this from somewhere, as it's been used as a factor in discussing articles of people who have won the awards.DGG (talk) 18:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep and Comment G. Edward Griffin was self-promoting a sort of press release in which he claimed to have won this award. After researching his connection to the award on LexisNexis, Factiva and Google News, we could not find a single, independent reliable source who reported his win. Consequently, we deleted all self-serving mentions to the Telly Award in that article per WP:SELFPUB. That said, a quick scan of Google News (for example) does register 142 hits from newspapers that report on others who won the award. Sure, some of them also appear to be press releases and therefore do not support the notability requirements. But others might. It might be worth reading through these articles before we decide to delete this WP entry. J Readings (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that there might be some notability on some of those mentions, but none has been added since December 2006. The article was already prodded too [54] and the prod was removed two days later [55]. I sort of suypect that maybe *all* of them are press releases. Not sure if I will have this week time to look throught 142 entries to check it :( --Enric Naval (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, I actually checked some. Most of them appear to be passing-by mentions on regional newspapers that look like a mixture of brainless regurgitaging of list of awards and press releases done by public relationship firms [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] , followed in number by false positives not really related to Telly like this one that is really talking about an Emmy [62], lots of false positives talking about awards and mentioning the word "telly", and finally really misleading articles like this "National TV Award" that looks like a Telly [63]. The Telly website has a testimonials page [64], but has no press release page and no page about appearances on press. That's a very bad sign, IMO --Enric Naval (talk) 22:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

omgwtf [65] "Sep. 27--Gutterglove, a Rocklin company that makes a self-cleaning gutter guard system for homes, received five Telly Awards for a 30-minute, magazine-style infomercial." and what about [66] Hamilton City School District board members last week accepted a Telly Award for the district's 2004 video, "Hamilton City Schools - A Premier District." Geez, such a well done video, I'm sure the jury was impressed. Damn, what can I add to that? On the other hand, if we can stablish from a independient reliable source that they really get 13,000 entries (not a regurgitating of Telly press releases), the article can probably be worth keeping as a resource used by enterprises to have an excuse for a press release :D --Enric Naval (talk) 22:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are false positives for ~~both "National Telly awards" and~~ "Indian Telly Awards" --Enric Naval (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Telly Award appears to be the same as Telly Award.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adenda: another telly winner, the dancing pumpking [67], singing the wild west [68], this guy has won it 6 times [69] and this other one 7 times [70], NESN has won 5 tellys on 2004 and 5 more on 2005 (not sure if it's the correct Telly) [71], this guy has won it 11 times and also won 4 Auroras (not related at all to the Aurora_Award on wikipedia) (you can mail the aurora organization at their aol.com email at winaurora@aol.com, I love how subtle they are and how their website resembles the Telly awards website, and how they have the same the same $70 entry fee and the same $150 fee per award, how original of them, nobody could ever say that they look anything like yet another get-me-an-award-for-a-fee bussiness) [72][73], Hirschi (High School) has won seven Bronze Telly awards in previous years The 20-minute film featured students who work with Hirschi’s IB program as they discussed some of their IB projects, personal challenges and accomplishments in the internationally-focused program. [74], Respironics Inc., share the second Bronze Telly award for a consumer DVD which details how to use the REMstar M Series Continuous Positive Airway Pressure device [75], "fun with silly sally" got a bronze telly for production excellence (?!) Kids will love watching Silly Sally over and over along with her puppet and clown friends [76] and, hum, a video called "Removing Head Lice Safely" [77]. It's parodied by some guys that won 3 of them, and at the end of the video they pack them away on a sstorage area (apparently, with other dozens of similar awards similarly packed) [78]. This video about a crazy clown that eats your head off because it tastes like sausage won 2 tellys for lighting and sound design [79]. This oil change center video won a Telly and an Aurora [80]. On youtube you can also find winning videos that don't look like, well, you know, bad jokes Doc Holiday music video Gatorade announcement microscopic explorer video produced for NASA. There also other "serious" winners like Discovery Channel [81]. Well, that's enough, I think I got to communicate the idea that the criteria to give the videos is highly dubious (and, yeah, I can't put it on the article because of lack of sources). Also, their web is broken and doesn't display the list of bronze winners, so I couldn't properly check the proclaimed winners againts their list. They also have literally hundreds of sub-categories for the awards, I'm not joking, check them out [82] and their winner list names them by identifying code, so it's imposible to know what award did every winner get, so you can see that Blizzard Entertainment got 3 silver Telly on 2007, on the categories of NB46, NB36 and NB37, go blizzard! [83]. I swear that I'm not against keeping the article if we find notorius mentions for notability (nor sure if the spam via press release on tons of regional newspapers counts), but saying that it is a serious award based on merits is going to need a "citation needed" tag, and citing the Telly website for this fact would, hum, well, probably not acceptable per WP:RS. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but find your tone rather annoying. You seem to be suggesting that we should discount this article because some of the winners have ridiculous subject matter, of course many of them do not mention what they won for and it most likely is a Bronze Telly with the ones you show the most disdain for. A look around at Silver Telly winners pops up a lot of notable mentions like G4, GE, Lockheed Martin, and various universities. The US Geological Survey also has a video which won a Silver Telly as I recall. I don't see anything on Silver Tellys about fish tanks or evil clowns.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, how do you know they didn't just delete those from the list? It's not as if their list of winners gets published anywhere outside their website, let alone reproduced by any magazine, not even specialized niche magazines. We don't have any source that claims they wouldn't do such a thing as remove a winner from the list, and nobody published copies of their list. Also they have no accountability and no transparency and they don't mention who the judges are (the Telly ones don't, others do), so it's imposible to know how or why those videos got awarded. And having notable clients that paid to get an award is not notable by itself (a secondary source talking about how they have those clients, however, would actually help towards stablishing notability of the award. Now, if I could only find one....) --Enric Naval (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lol, the peppermint pig Telly winner [84], the parody with chess and Warhammer [85]. To be fair, searching for telly award on the site digs out both good and terrible vids. Some of the worst are just plain jokes that it's injustifiable that they won anything --Enric Naval (talk) 00:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this website here is making the same fallacy of notability throught proxy: "since CNN and AOL won this prize, and since we won twelve tellys (!), this means that we are as famous as CNN or AOL" [86]. Mind you, I loved this video of his (Telly for use of music) [87] --Enric Naval (talk) 00:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Should be judged on same standards as Marquis Who's Who, as a PR and self-pub aggregator. Agree with J Readings; I recall someone saying there is no comparable award in this field. It's not a notability-conferring award (and WP guidelines should imply so), but it is a notable vehicle in itself which has been used by thousands of producers. John J. Bulten (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we can stablish notability for it being a self-promotion award that has made its way into being reported notable media on its own merits, then I'm all for keeping the article, just like the Marquis article. For now, the Marquis article has mentions on New York Times and Forbes, and has its contents listed on Northwestern University Library and Harvard's Biography Resource Center. Meanwhile the Telly article has, well, as far as we know, and until we find a source, zero mentions on anything notable except self-serving press releases. Not sure if that is enough for keeping the article. If you could recall who said that about not being comparable.... On the DoubleJay Creative article (that I put also up for deletion) there is a long list of similar pay-to-obtain awards --Enric Naval (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I had never heard of it, but then again, I had never heard of the Clio award until I got to college. A search of Google, including Google books, confirms that people like to brag about it when they win one of these. Mandsford (talk) 23:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice, but we would need a secondary source making that statement, if I interpreted the notability rules correctly. If one is found, it could be used to make a claim of notability. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - But not as nice as you... let me know what you find. Mandsford (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I actually looked and I couldn't find any. Feel free to post one here if you can find it. I already got tired of seeing lame press releases on regional newspapers and self-published articles --Enric Naval (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can see nothing but mentions in passing o press release material. None of it makes for reliable sources, and the article has been tagged for needing these sources for over a year. -- Whpq (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the editor who nominated this seems fixated on attacking the Awards just because of the content of some of the videos claiming to win awards, I see no basis for these attacks as a review of Silver Telly winners does not show anything which appears to be in the vein of videos being criticized. The similar awards pointed out by the nominator ignores that all of these came after the Telly Awards so it's quite possible they're actually copying the Telly Awards or copying copies of the Telly Awards. If that's the case it alone would be reason enough to have an article on the awards here. However, the criteria for notability is met as various sources can be found to attest to notability.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please point out the reliable sources as I could only find press releases -- Whpq (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have no source for those awards being copied from Telly awards, and, mind you, ~~we have no source for the claim that they have been giving awards for 28 years~~. Scratch that, I got a webarchive.org 2000 version of the website [88]. At that time, their website actually looked legit and cites a guy called David E. Carter. Btw, I think that a 28 years old award that was really notable would have by now been mentioned on *some* notable source at *some* point just because of the sheer antiguity, but I couldn't find any mention that wasn't from a press release. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

possible RS. Went to "incoming links" link of Alexa stats for their website, and I found the source motherlode [89]. As posible RS, NYC lists them on same page as their Emmy awards and nominations [90], and so does Iowa Public Television [91], and Alaska Conservation Fund [92], Morgan Freeman won two of them and said he was proud and honored [93]. As non-RS, yahoo lists them also with Emmys and other non-dubious awards [94]. Also, saw it cited as "it's the most prestigious award for this type of video (home videos) on a pair of sites. All the rest were press releases, self-publishing and/or didn't support notability. This is starting to look better. Now, if somnatieone could actually a source talking directly of the awards..... --Enric Naval (talk) 00:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC) Moar possible sources for remarkability Southeastern channel lists them on same list as Emmy and other awards (need to check them) [95]. WLIW lists with other awards (needs to check, maybe it leads to more copycats of Telly [96]. North Carolina[reply]

Department of Health and Human Services brags about it [97]. Microsoft puts it on the same level as the Louis Braille gold medal givent to Bill Gates [98]. That shows that all those companies bothered to apply for the award. It also seems that "National Telly awards" is also a Telly award. "Among past production company winners have been Oprah Winfrey’s Harpo Productions, The Walt Disney Company, ESPN, HBO, A&E, The History Channel and ABC", that means that all of them bothered to send at least one entry for getting the award, since you have to ask for entering the competition and pay a fee, still a press release, thought [99]. Other braggers are National Meningitis Association [100] National Agricultural Aviation Association (the guy with the crop duster planes) [101], National Music Museun at University of Dakota [102], the Discovery Channel with a statement from National Park Foundation president "The Telly Awards are a significant creative achievement in the entertainment industry and we are delighted that Discovery's park documentaries have once again received this honor" so they have applied for Telly more times [103], the Neuropathy Association [104], a company that has won American Film & Video Association's Red Ribbon and National Media Council Gold Mercury awards displays them together with Telly [105], Jim Henson's company lists them with a ton of minor Emmy, Grammy, Silver Hugo Award (whatever that is), and other stuff [106] --Enric Naval (talk) 11:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I retract my nomination. I'll try to incorporate as much info as I can to the article. It's still barely notable per lack of real sources, but has a lot of little details that help to make it remarkable, like the pay-for-the-actual-statue-to-lower-entry-fee scheme and the host of copycats --Enric Naval (talk) 01:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be able until sunday to do the promised changes to the article, so please wait until monday before closing so the closing admin will be able to see the improved version of the article and not the actual one that caused the nomination. People, remember that you can still comment even if nomination is retracted, and that the closing admin can still decide to delete the article --Enric Naval (talk) 08:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I still remain unconvinced. These still are all press releases. And the Morgan Freemam quote is actually quoting a spokesperson speaking on his behalf. -- Whpq (talk) 10:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The final decision remains on the closing admin. Let's see if on Sunday I can get the article to assert enough notability to convince him. I'll try to make a rationale explaining why it's worthy of being noted by WP:CORP's "Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice."" even if there aren't really any secondary sources that comply with the policy.

Of course, if the closing admin is going to be unconvinced even if I:

add all the stuff I digged out into a superb edit style,
make a case for being the oldest award of its sort,
demonstrate beyond doubt that it has been copycated by half a dozen other award sites that are themselves featured on hundreds of press releases,
show how a few notable companies elevate it to the same level as Emmy when showing off their awards,
explain how its unique fee scheme revolutioned the industry (if I dig out a source for that)
manage to show it as actually the most reputable and notable award for low and middle budget videos
show how lots of notable companies actually bothered to apply for the award
find notable videos whose authors brag about the video having won the award
show that the article is about the company, the award, and the whole shoddy commercial video award sector at the same time (each not notable enough on its own, but maybe notable enough all together)
manage to somehow link it to some article talking about pay-to-get-one awards on other industries (still not done)
and make a convincing speech here,

and still I won't be able to save the article from deletion, then maybe he should delete the article already and save me the work of trying :P --Enric Naval (talk) 11:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done with the changes. I'm afraid I have no more time to dig out more sources, these will have to do. I'm now OK with closing admin checking the article and making a decision, since I'll surely won't be making more additions to the article or the debate --Enric Naval (talk) 02:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos for taking a shot at improving the article. But the references are essentially a laundry list of press releases. Press releases aren't considered reliable sources, so this issue remains unaddressed. -- Whpq (talk) 11:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just couldn't find *any* actual reliable source that fits the criteria at WP:CORP. However, the sources are not self-published press releases by Telly Awards, but self-published pages by the awards winners, so they don't totally fit the criterium of the "Press releases" exception, and could actually qualify as third persons making implied statements about Telly Awards. WP:CORP mentions the possibility of small companies not having secondary sources for several reasons. Also, notice that having reliable sources is the primary criterion for WP:CORP, but the policy says on its first sentence "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." (emphasis added), and later adds some alternate criteria for some organizations. Unfortunately, the Telly award doesn't fit exactly under any of the categories there, but I think that it can establish notability by other ways than reliable sources. Mainly, right now it's not an article about only a company, but about the set formed by the company and the award and the awards similar to it. Also, having certain characteristics that no other prize had at the moment of its creation, etc. Just saying that WP:CORP leaves a little space to decide notability on things other than RS sources, and Telly Awards could go use it. Anyways, I run out of sources and arguments. Cheers. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep: These[107] links [108] reference Richard Friley as the chairman of the judging panel for the 27th Annual Tellys, and this one [109] quotes him as the chairman for the 28th as well. And just to put my $.02 in: as someone that works in the industry, a Telly *is* quite prestigious. Just because you have to pay to enter doesn't decrease the value of the award-- among production companies, having one is something to brag about. Yes there are awards modeled after it, but the prestige of being chosen by judges in the industry is a big draw. Of all the others (Aurora, Aegis, Davey, etc) the Telly is by FAR the most prestigious and the most worthwhile to get, in terms of renown. Dingstersdie (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I added Richard Friley to the article. Pity that they don't release their list of judges, since it would be verifiable and would go a long way to showing that the videos are actually selected by a jury and not picked by hand. Seriously, the guys at Telly awards need to get their PR guy and their website designer into gear. They have no independient coverage of their award, their site *still* doesn't list the bronze winners, and their list of winners does not make clear on what category they won, which is objectively plain and pure suck (and is not exactly helping me on saving this article), and I just can't find a list of past press releases and fact sheets (another suck, and it does not help for transparency and legitimacy claims). Someone who knows these guys tell them to get their act right and mend their website. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

final final comment: Ignore All Rules and close as keep, RS sources be damned Since wikipedia is not a burocracy and WP:BURO tells us to ignore the rules when they prevent us from improving wikipedia, I'm asking the closing admin to consider that the awards are *obviously* notable and to screw the secondary sources requirement for this case. The multiple reasons and assertments provided by editors and the massive coverage given by the own winners ought to be enough. Let's save the article and keep the "unreferenced" tag because it's the best for improving the wikipedia, and that is the most important thing here. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.D.: There are plenty of reasons for the lack secondary sources, it's not like a news reporter is going to say something bad about the awards only to get outcasted by all the winners (everyone on the arts/entertainment field, it seems), and why say something good if they don't have an actual physical award giving ceremony so they can spend less money and keep fees cheap to keep it an award popular for low-budget videos, wich means no famous people that you can take photos of, and it's easier to just regurgitate their press releases anyways. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Armin Kutsche

No assertion of notability. No references.

Article has existed since 2003 and hasn't developed beyond "Armin Kutsche (1914-1995) was a German medical researcher."

I can find nothing whatsoever on Google other than WP and mirrors. Camillus (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. [110] shows nothing distinguishable. I can't even find publications. [111], [112]. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 22:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing in web of science either. Either a hoax, a misspelling, or such a nonentity as makes no difference from a hoax. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete unsourced, indistinguishable from hoax. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- good faith efforts to find ways of expanding have failed. Article can be recreated (easily) if sources are found. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 03:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Google returns many hits, all of them mirrors. Probably best to make sure such misinformation doesn't spread... nneonneo (talk) 03:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Nsk92 (talk) 11:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Possibly mispelling for "A Kutscher" who has some Medline-indexed articles in the correct timeframe, one of which is in a German journal. However, there seems little information in this article worth saving. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Willie Harcourt-Cooze

The article reads like a personal page, fansite and/or promotion. The person is an entrepreneur who was the subject of a recent UK documentary. Some press coverage is therefore available, however this is not extensive and the person is not notable enough for an encyclopedia. Robnpov (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite as necessary. They guy has a whole TV series on Channel 4 about him so we can't really claim he is not notable. I would have expected the TV series to have an article but it redirects here. Unless he is notable for other reasons it would be best to rewrite this as an article on the TV series. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a very good idea. I am not aware of him being notable for other reasons. Robnpov (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an independent article. Having a TV documenary about him clearly passes WP:BIO on its own, but there are also sources (particularly the Guardian reference in the article) which pre-date the TV series. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree work is needed. Notable enough imo due to the TV series, his company and his product. I also get the feeling we won't have heard the last of him, I expect a further rise in notability during the next few years. An existing article should see a better article develop than this getting deleted and someone having to start again from scratch at a later date. GQsm ^{Talk | c} 13:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it, I have found it very interesting given his TV series and also his fantastic product range that he has brought to the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.240.124 (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Djent

Not a single source proving that this genre exists; seems to be just the same as either math rock or progressive/groove metal. Full of original research and unverified claims.

Also just ran all the band names through the metal-archives; every single one (that had a page) was listed as either progressive metal or technical metal, the term "Djent" was not used once. ≈ The Haunted Angel 16:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. It's a clever coinage actually, but still a neologism/protologism, as a web search makes abundantly clear. It's not Wikipedia's job to establish genres and neologisms; we're not Urban Dictionary. Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, non-notable neologism. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:SNOW. Looks like all the leg work that could be done to establish notability has been done to no avail, no need to draw this out. SingCal 07:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. bibliomaniac 15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 01:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laert Aleksi Xhaferi

No evidence of notability due to a lack of significant coverage by reliable, independent secondary sources (no sources are given). I can't find any information to verify that the living person even exists to confirm whether or not the article is a hoax (which it may well be). Guest9999 (talk) 16:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources to verify any claims made. "Their gallery" appears to be one owned by the subject's family. That's not notability, that's nepotism. DarkAudit (talk) 16:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. House of Scandal (talk) 17:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. Johnbod (talk) 22:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.Modernist (talk) 23:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. freshacconcispeaktome 02:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Cassidy (artist)

Non-notable artist, fails WP:BIO (the only ref is to his own website). I had PRODded the article without noticing that an earlier PROD had been contested, so I am bringing this to AFD BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless references to multiple independent reliable sources are found demonstrating notability. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom ww2censor (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO. Macy (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 22:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. freshacconcispeaktome 02:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No assertion of notability. Johnbod (talk) 04:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BIO. [113]Personal webpage, myspace, and unimportant directories. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 04:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Modernist (talk) 18:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wizardman 02:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yavneh Day School (Los Gatos, California)

This article violates WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Bstone (talk) 16:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redir is fine with me. Bstone (talk) 08:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Los Gatos, California#Private schools per established precedent. TerriersFan (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC) Change to Keep - notability has now been established. TerriersFan (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, only thing found in a search for the school is it listing in school lists. AlbinoFerret (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect as per TerriersFan. The listing is there, we may as well point to it. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of the Yavneh entry, I would not be opposed to replacing the current version with a redirect to the list of Private Schools on the Los Gatos, CA entry. I think that lack of notability is a better justification in this case than not a directory justification. If the page is deleted, I will not make a new entry unless I come across new information that meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. Thanks to User:Bstone for notifying me of the actions being taken here. AJseagull1 (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AJ: A redirect meand that the valid and informative material will be lost. Kindly reconsider, see my suggestions for keeping the article, below. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Los Gatos, California. Macy (talk) 21:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 08:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR Yahel Guhan 08:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Yahel: How is it "OR"? IZAK (talk) 08:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Northern California's only Conservative Judaism Jewish day school it qualifies as notable. The various suggestions to merge above make no sense as that would dilute the unique nature and purpose of this important institution. Jewish schools like this are a rarity. Jews are always a tiny minority in any area and if all articles about Jewish institutions and events were based on their size then almost every article about Jews and Judaism could be "merged" into this or that sundry topic. The nominator should have requested more information and sources as this article is not written as a "directory entry." How else to write an article about a school but to start with the core facts about it?, which is not the same as writing for a "directory." To merge it into its geographic ___location makes no sense either as it is not a geographic topic. This article is part of many articles in a series within Category:Conservative Jewish day schools and of Category:Jews and Judaism in California. IZAK (talk) 08:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: Yavneh Day School is now a disambigation page because there are a number of schools that go by this name. So far, it links to Yavneh Day School (Los Gatos, California) and Yavneh Day School (Cincinnati, Ohio). Both articles are at present being upgraded and improved with the requisite information, citations and references. The nomination should be suspended to give this enough time. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable information is here. I agree with IZAK that more time is needed to expand. Thanks. Bhaktivinode (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. User:IZAK and a GoogleNews search convinces me that a NPOV, V, and NOR article can be made. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the changes made by User:IZAK, I think the article meets notability requirements to remain on wikipedia. AJseagull1 (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, among other things meets Wikipedia:Notability (schools) alternative criteria #1. --MPerel 19:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that notability has been concretely established. (jarbarf) (talk) 17:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:School primary criteria. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 05:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete A7 by User:DJ Clayworth. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jolly Stephen Akemere Igberase

notability not established - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7. Notability not even asserted. DarkAudit (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP is not a memorial site. Camillus (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 08:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable baby boomers

A list for the sake of a list. ukexpat (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notable people born in the 18 year baby boom period are listed on the pages for the individual years (e.g. 1950#Births) one single list would be huge (if completed) and redundant. Guest9999 (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- See Talk:List of notable baby boomers for why I created this article in the first place. If the result of this AfD nomination is "Delete," then I will also consider that to represent community consensus to keep this list out of Baby boomer. (I would probably vote "Delete" myself, but I think it is bad form to vote Delete on article you created earlier that day, heh....) --Jaysweet (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I saw your comment on the talk page - I don't think the list should exist either as a separate article or in the Baby boomer article. – ukexpat (talk) 17:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to notify the IP who initially created the list, so he/she could it least put in his/her two cents -- but unfortunately it seems to be a dynamic IP, so if I left a User Talk message, the odds of it getting to its destination are probably pretty small. Ah well... --Jaysweet (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the effort is appreciated, millions of people were born during the "baby boom", and there are thousands and thousands who are notable under the standards of Wikipedia. This article just scratches the surface, and it's unmanageable. Mandsford (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 22:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. List casts much too wide a net and could contain the thousands of people born in the Baby Boomer era. 23skidoo (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete useless list, too nebulous and too wide scope Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to B'nai Emet Synagogue (St. Louis Park, Minnesota). Sandstein (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B'nai Emet Synagogue

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/B'nai Emet Synagogue

This article violates WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Bstone (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Change to dambig are create two articles. Both synagogues have sources.

For the California synagogue there is: Los Angeles Times at [114], Also, [115], [116], [117], etc...

For the Minnesota synagogue there is: Star Tribune at [118], [119], [120], etc... Thanks. Bhaktivinode (talk) 04:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Bhaktivinode (talk) 04:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a REDIRECT page to the new full article B'nai Emet Synagogue (St. Louis Park, Minnesota) that has full citations and sources. The other "B'nai Emet" synagogue is officially called "Temple B'nai Emet" and there is no article for that. IZAK (talk) 07:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect B'nai Emet Synagogue (St. Louis Park, Minnesota) to the current title. Yahel Guhan 08:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per IZAK. --MPerel 19:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wizardman 02:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David E. Stern

Delete & Merge info Subject lacks notability and attempts to add WP:RS have failed. Bstone (talk) 15:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine with redirection, as well. Bstone (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Temple Emanu-El of Dallas (where he is head rabbi). I think the subject is real-world notable, but after much effort, reliable sources haven't been identified to establish that for wiki. Karanacs (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Bhaktivinode (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Dallas Morning News states that he is the, "senior rabbi at the nation's third-largest Reform congregation." [121] Thanks. Bhaktivinode (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Temple Emanu-El of Dallas per Karanacs. --MPerel 16:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC) Updated to Keep, I think the additional sources added to the article puts it over the edge establishing notability. --MPerel 06:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Rabbi of the largest congregation in the South and Southwest is certainly notable. Internet doesn't do a good job on recording sources as Wikipedia prefers, but that doesn't diminish his importance within the Jewish community. JerseyRabbi (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources don't have to be internet based, but no other sources have been brought forward in the two months since the article was tagged for notability. Karanacs (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Karanacs, without prejudice. The problem is that, without multiple, independent sources giving non-trivial mentions of him, we have no material we can put in an encyclopaedic article. All we can really do - unless and until such sources show up - is mention him at Temple Emanu-El of Dallas and give his title. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 20:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the size of his synagogue, his role in American Reform Judaism, the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, Hebrew Union College, etc. has been sufficiently sourced to warrant notability independent of the congregation. Reform is currently the largest Jewish denomination in the United States. Religious publications like this one, have long been considered acceptable for establishing notability within a major religious denomination. --Shirahadasha (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Shirahadasha, JerseyRabbi, Bhaktivinode. IZAK (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article has been updated to include 2 additional references that are reliable sources, per discussion above. Thanks. Bhaktivinode (talk) 12:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, consensus is that the improvements to the the article during the AFD now meet the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heartbeat (Scouting for Girls song)

WP:MUSIC requires individual song article to at least have reached a chart; this song does not and so fails notability criteria - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: AMG search, Billboard.com search. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy delete Does not meet WP:MUSIC. Previously deleted under afd.~~ -- Taroaldo (talk) 16:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have taken a second look today, and the article in its present state is sufficient for me to change my position to keep. --- Taroaldo (talk) 07:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To quote WP:CSD#G4's template - "It was previously deleted via a deletion discussion, is substantially identical to the deleted version, and any changes do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted." It doesn't meet G4 according to the third part of that. The confirmation of its release is enough for it not to qualify for speedy.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ignore all rules. It's getting radio play at the moment and is almost certain to chart given the previous two were top 10. If we delete this, it'll end up getting recreated very soon.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In retrospect maybe it was slightly early to create this yet, but whatever.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ignore all Rules doesn't mean ignore all rules all the time. If that happened we would have anarchy. -- Taroaldo (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of that.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:MUSIC does not say that songs are automatically notable if they chart it says they are "probably notable" (it also doesn't say that songs are automatically not notable if they haven't charted). The guideline says that "All articles on albums or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines." and "A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" - I do not think there is enough material is availale at this time. Guest9999 (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable band, reliable sources, and the song has a top 40 chart position at present. I've updated the article and it seems to be relevant. AceLinkOccassional (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — article much improved; looks to have addressed deletion concerns. --Haemo (talk) 04:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Expand and keep Top 40 hit on a national chart (UK) qualifies for WP:MUSIC. Prose needs fleshing out to make it to stub. Please note WP:2S. B.Wind (talk) 06:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. Wizardman 03:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-final

This page is just a dictionary definition right now, and I'm not seeing much potential for expansion. I suggest that, like the quarter-final page, this be changed to a redirect to Single-elimination tournament. DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I agree to it.

—— The Unknown HitchhikerO 15:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, although, technically, a semi-final can occur in a double-elimination tournament as well. The definition contained in the article isn't accurate, since it says that one usage is "any post-regular season match". A final is not a semi-final, nor does the term seem to be applied to anything less than the final that decides half of the two teams in a final match (hence the prefix 'semi'). Mandsford (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, though I will note that Mandsford's last comment isn't totally accurate. In some competitions, a final four teams can then play a major semi-final to send a team directly to the final, and a minor semi-final which decides which of the other two teams competes against the loser of the major semi-final to send another team to the final. Thus the minor semi-final doesn't decide half of the two teams in the final match. Grutness...wha? 01:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 03:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Münster: An Anabaptist Utopia

Has references but reads like a term paper, probable WP:OR. ukexpat (talk) 15:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research. The references are all links back to themselves. DarkAudit (talk) 15:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy at User:Mkorylak and delete. A new user has done some research and written an article on the Anabaptist commune and uploaded it as an article. While as an article it doesn't work, there are several pages, including Münster Rebellion and Anabaptism, which might benefit from his research, and he should be encouraged to edit them. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I already saved a copy of his text at a subpage of his user page. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health

Contains no material of encyclopedic value that cannot be housed in the UoP article. Significantly, the article contains no third party independent sources indicating notability. Suggest merge the few notable content into parent, then delete this. There are similar pages devoted to departments that should be considered for deletion. The JPS ^{talk to me} 15:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Due to the improvements and additions of third party sources, I'd like to withdraw this nomination. However, 'Schools'/'Departments' or whatever should not become complacent/arrogant. Wikipedia is not a directory, or a prospectus. Articles need independent sources for notability. I have tagged some as appropriate. The JPS ^{talk to me} 18:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, although not a well constructed page, and definitely worthy of an Expand tag, it is tagged as a stub and it fits well within the notability of the pages within the following Category:Schools of public health. It is a highly respected school (ranked 11th by U.S. News 2007 rankings) and has one of the best funded public health research programs (top 3) in the United States demonstrating its notability. This page could be improved thus negating the need for a delete. Although not the creator of the page (or a high priority for myself) given time over the next several days I will work on addressing the lack of third party independent sources for which there is legitimate concern. Other US Universities within similar pages for their Schools of Public Health include : Boston University School of Public Health, Columbia Mailman School of Public Health, Harvard School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, University of Minnesota School of Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Public Health, Rollins School of Public Health, San Diego State University College of Health & Human Services, Texas A&M Health Science Center School of Rural Public Health, UC Berkeley School of Public Health, UCLA School of Public Health, University of Florida College of Public Health and Health Professions, University of Georgia College of Public Health, University of Michigan School of Public Health, University of South Florida College of Public Health, University of Texas School of Public Health, University of Washington School of Public Health and Community Medicine, Yale School of Public Health. cp101p (talk) 21:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some departments are notable and there will be a strong case for keep for some of them. However, some of the above are little more that directory entries or prospectus-esque ("...offers MSc and PhD, etc."). They must have third party sources to indicate notability. The JPS ^{talk to me} 22:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree that many of those pages are problematic, but wouldn't a primary sources tag or expand tag be more appropriate before a delete tag is applied? There is the train of thought that most schools are notable (see endless entries for myriads of K-12 schools, etc). Therefore, any school of a major research University, especially large and well funded ones (10-100s of millions), are well within the realm of notability. However, specifically in regards to Pitt's school of public health, US News and NIH rankings (now referenced on main article) should, I believe, more than justify its notability. I have also added a historical blurb about its first Dean, U.S. Surgeon General Thomas Parran, Jr..cp101p (talk) 22:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your points. I have applied tags to most of the above. The only point I would dispute, really, is that they are departments, not individual institutions (although I'd expect that they'd be registered individually for different business purposes). I guess the relevant guideline here is that notability is not inherited. Anyway, whatever. :) The JPS ^{talk to me} 23:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though I don't want to seem like I'm getting technical with you, schools are not departments and vice versa. For instance a "College", like Pitt's College of Arts and Sciences, is comprised of Departments such as Philosophy, Chemistry, Physics, History, Biology, etc. The School of Medicine includes the departments of neurology, pathology, endocrinology, anesthesiology, oncology, etc (and most have Divisions within the departments). The School of Public Health at Pitt consists of seven departments: Behavioral & Community Health Sciences, Biostatistics, Environmental & Occupational Health, Epidemiology, Health Policy & Management, Human Genetics, and Infectious Disease & Microbiology. These are all separate departments, and I agree, they don't deserve their own pages. There are also a variety of research Centers within the school. Schools generally offer and set up requirements for awarding their various academic credentials (although the University awards the degree). "Schools" also have their own Deans, fundraising arms, administration, admissions, publications, budgets, etc. They function somewhat independently within the overall context of the University. Many have histories that are separate from the university they ultimately become a part of (Penn State's Law School, Drexel's Med School, Radcliffe College at Harvard, etc). Generally "universities" (in the US) are considered "universities" because they are comprised of multiple schools or colleges and some institutions change their name to reflect this fact. Historically, Harvard College to Harvard University or Penn State College to Penn State University. More recently, Saint Francis College (PA) to Saint Francis University. Others prefer to keep their name despite growing into a university: e.g. Boston College. Therefore, I disagree with your assertion that these schools are simply departments, because they are really a much greater entity within any university. cp101p (talk) 00:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

added history section and references to make it more encyclopediccp101p (talk) 04:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

also would like to point out that the parent article is already too big and there is no room to merge into parent article.cp101p (talk) 15:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I agree with the arguments by cp101p. A school is a distinct entity within a university, and can contain many departments. To delete the schools (medicine, nursing, dentistry, public health, law, business, etc.) and merge them into the university's article would create enormous articles. Articles for each school 1.) allows the university's article to be more manageable 2.) recognizes that schools at the same university are VERY different from each other. An expand tag may be warranted, but a delete tag is not. As far as notability, this seems foreign to me. How do you explain that a university is notable? That it exists? However you choose to determine that a university/college is notable (I propose that all are), then use that logic to determine if the school of business, law, public health, etc. is notable. Cmcnicoll (talk) 09:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I agree with both cp101p & Cmcnicoll. This could lead to a slippery slope, and deletion of other Colleges within major Research Universities. Jccort (talk) 15:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why they should be given special preference. All articles need independent reliable sources. The JPS ^{talk to me} 15:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you that there should not be special preference given to universities or schools so that they somehow are above the need for 3rd party references to justify notability. Certainly, anyone could come up with their own "school", for instance, maybe something like "The Xxx School of Small Appliance Repair". This is where notability becomes an major issue and these pages are probably more attune to self promotion and are very problematic. Probably anyone associated with accredited or research academic settings would consider Colleges or Schools within (at least the major) universities to be notable. While this is certainly open for wider debate, there are literally 100s of precedents on Wikipedia for this being the case. In fact, many schools have pages for every obscure football or tidily wink coach dating back to 1869. Certainly, I don't mean to be attacking those pages here, but the point is it is the context pages are presented in, along with how those pages are organized within the scope of an overall topic, i.e. University or College, is very important. For instance, there are pages that exist for every way-station on a particular metro line. Are these in themselves notable? No, but within the context of the overall presentation of material for a particular metro system they make sense for the completeness the thoroughness of the information. They certainly pass the no new original-research and no self-promotion tests, but again, their organization within the overall topic is key. I think there is a larger issue here, which is primarily the creation of "page-holder" or stub pages without adequate timely follow-up. It appears to me that many pages are created with insufficient content with the intention of encouraging future development of that topic by others. Problems occur when editors, like myself, only have access to internet resources, and not primary (hardcopy) resources more likely to be found in closer to the physical ___location of the topic (e.g. local libraries) when trying to follow up on these pages. Another problem comes from deleting the "skeletal" articles due to insufficient resources because many of them have taken the use of the most appropriate Wikipeida titles for their topic and if someone does come along later with an interest in creating an adequately researched page, they'll get the previous deletion notification. Plus, there is the issue of precedence setting, which although not a justification in notability itself, just factor in to what new pages are edited and created. I think it is worth debating whether all of the 1000s of secondary pages branched off from universities are notable, but they all have to be looked at even and within the context of their overall organization within the topic as well.cp101p (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You were right about the tags first. I've used the primary sources tag, as the expand tag can sometimes be construed as an invitation to fill it with any junk by those unfamiliar with the project. I was brought to this article while I was on RC patrol. Someone created a 'School' page for Pitt with the rationale that others had one. I think the same logic should be applied here as to television episodes. That is, notability is not inherited. I wouldn't dream of creating a page for the 'School' in which I work, although I could probably do some digging and cite the £1000s of research funding... The JPS ^{talk to me} 19:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This article could definitely use editing, but it is definitely deserving of its own article. As stated above, major research divisions and colleges within universities commonly have their own wiki article, primarily because offer such extensive information on the main university page would be exhaustive and non-topical. The Graduate School of Public Health at Pitt is one of the top 10 schools of its kind in the country (according to USNews), and its functions, research, and structure should be further explored in an independent article. - --PenelopePgh (talk) 18:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another point: What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If Columbia, Cornell, and all of the rest of the Ivy League Schools can have pages on everything under the sun, then the Major Research Universities with multiple billion endowments should also be extended this same precident. Just my honest opinon. Jccort (talk) 21:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —150.212.41.61 (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Tag it with unreferenced/expand tags, but there's no need to AFD this article. It is clearly notable and clearly verifiable sources can be found with a simple 2 second google. Silliness.--150.212.41.61 (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the responsibility of editors to indicate notability. The JPS ^{talk to me} 17:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This article helps many people understand the strong history of this school. With all of the updated references, I don't understand why the deletion policy box is still on the page. JPS, I understand exactly what you are saying about adding references. I think that this discussion shows how important references are. I just think an expand tag would have been a better choice. Thanks! DiscoStu412 (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete under criteria A7. Marasmusine (talk) 15:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fast-Fix Jewelry Repair

WP:CORP Does not meet notability. -- Wguynes (Talk | contribs) 14:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam. Tagged as such. Author is User:FFkarin, who has only contributed to this article and a couple of related items. Most likely an SPA. DarkAudit (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piet Jeegers

questionable notability; references supporting his notability are hard find (447 Yhits). - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maxim_(talk) 12:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 13:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I get approximately 910 Ghits, and am inclined to think he'd be more suitable for the Dutch Wiki, but the article says that he's invented various mouthpieces for bite differences, that would be somewhat notable, so would think he passes WP:N based on that. ArcAngel (talk) 15:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just to add to the lack of consensus I'm going to sit on the fence too, but I'd just like to point out that there's no such concept as "more suitable for the Dutch Wiki". The language of a Wikipedia project is simply a matter of the language in which the articles are written - it has has nothing to do do with where the article subjects come from or what language sources are written in. This subject's notability for the purposes of the English language Wikipedia is exactly the same as it would be if he was from an anglophone country and everything written about him was in English. His suitability for Dutch Wikipedia can be decided by consensus there, where policies are developed independently from English Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 14:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He seems quite notable, quite a few ghits. Developing a new type of Clarinet reeds seems quite notable. Redmarkviolinist ^{Drop me a line} 15:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Probably meets the notability guidelines. I ended up doing a Dutch only Google search, then letting it translate the links. Not a ton of hits, but in addition to the above I found two or three musicians listing the fact that they studied under him as part of their bio. The aggregate of all of this makes me lean towards notability. Xymmax (talk) 15:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has an extensive discography, which suggests that he meets the criteria for musicians#5. However, referencing needs improving imo and I have tagged it so. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources may be hearder to find, but that does not make non-English-speaking people non-notable. Article asserts notability based on his ideas on mouthpiece designs and extensive discography. Edward321 (talk) 23:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. --Angelo (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Serie B 1965-66

I do not feel this page is suitable for wikipedia, as it is difficult to understand, it also contains no words or sentences—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwilso (talk • contribs) 14:06, March 24, 2008

Keep. Notable topic. I added a one-sentence intro for context. Mangostar (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that the original version needed some context, but it's just as notable as the 1965-66, or 1966, season for any other sport. In this case, it's an accurate summary about the second level soccer league in Italy. It could probably use some more narrative, since a point's worth of difference determined which teams got promoted, and which ones got demoted. Mandsford (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs citations though Think outside the box 20:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since I'm the author of the articles I can't say vote on this, but it's maybe the... 100th (also counting Serie A articles) article that I created with this format. Why should this particular season be deleted? CapPixel (talk) 21:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Cap, you can vote on this. There's no rule against author(s) of an article participating in the discussion. BTW, I like the format-- you've captured the essence of the divisional system correctly, where the top teams get moved up and the bottom teams get moved down, and you've shown the results of the games. Mandsford (talk) 23:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's consider it a keep vote, then. Thanks for appreciation. :) CapPixel (talk) 07:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - perfectly acceptable recap of a sports season. It'd be nice if there were a bit more write-up, but that can be worked on. matt91486 (talk) 22:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We seem to have many articles on various seasons of various leagues of various sports. There will obviously be coverage of these seasons, so I'm inclined to think them all notable. Maxa megalon 2000 05:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the above. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The English leagues have thses articles so why not the Italian leagues NapHit (talk) 13:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arizona primary, 2004

Not only does article not cite sources, but article is useless as results can mostly be found at Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2004

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason as mentioned aboce:

Delete All Three. Not encyclopedic enough, and the pictures are irrelevant. Dwilso 14:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all While the articles were not in great condition at the time of nomination they certainly have potential as per all the articles which have been created on the 2008 primaries - see Category:United States Democratic presidential primaries, 2008. I am spending some time on improving the Arizona primary article for which there are plenty of reliable sources to establish notability and have begun adding some to the article. Given time all three articles can be improved as I am doing for the Arizona article. Davewild (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - per Davewild. These are notable topics and the articles are useful even in their present condition. Remaining issues should be dealt with through cleanup, not deletion. Johntex\^talk 17:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all three There is somewhat more information than can be incorporated into the general article about the 2004 primaries, and the electoral information is notable. The Arizona primary article is the best of the three, but there's room for all of these to be expanded. Mandsford (talk) 18:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: As a member of Wikipedia: WikiProject United States presidential elections, I can see potential, but there is also potential for undue weight if election coverage becomes unbalanced. Fix the DE comma. John J. Bulten (talk) 20:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have sorted the title of the Delaware article. Davewild (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all as there are concerted efforts underway to make viable articles out of individual primaries. 23skidoo (talk) 22:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All Per Davewild. These articles may be in some sort of trouble in terms of appearance, but they are covered by reliable third party sources, establishing notability and passing WP:N. Twenty Years 07:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 03:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence D. Weisberg

The article makes a lot of claims, but none of them would make this guy very notable. The main claim of notability is that he works for Dreamworks, but the article fails to mention he's worked as a paralegal, website designer and production assistant, none of which influence the end product in a meaningful way. The article also claims he was awarded a Gold Record for a Kenny G record, for marketing/merchandising services, which doesn't really make any sense, since the award is given to the artist. So in short, lots of puffery, no substance. - Bobet 14:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The claim, although probably spurious, of a gold record precludes a speedy delete. Nothing here that rises to any level of notability. All claims, no proof. DarkAudit (talk) 14:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The achievements claimed while in the Navy are definitely not encyclopedic. Shellback, bluenose, and plankowner are really a matter of right place, right time. No personal involvement is necessary beyond selecting a duty station coming out of schooling or a call to the detailer. Submarine Warfare qualification is pretty much a given if you're assigned to submarine duty. DarkAudit (talk) 14:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article does not show notability of subject. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sobolsoft

Contested speedy delete upgraded to AFD. Article fails to demonstrate notability per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies): the subject of coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. It has 573,000 Google hits, but virtually all via promiscuously duplicated listings at shareware download sites. This is a single-person company that appears to have made it into Wikipedia via an actively solicited article creation: see WP:COIN#Something to keep an eye out for. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Not notable. 98.206.118.185 (talk) 14:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Though 'sobolsoft' gets 573,000 Google hits, which shows there could be some kind of demand for its products, I couldn't find the company or the software written up in any reliable sources. Thus there is no good quality information from which a proper article could be written. EdJohnston (talk) 14:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless article has more sources. Dwilso 15:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of verifiability, third-party reliable sources, and general notability. --MCB (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per crystal clear nom. — Athaenara ✉ 05:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. The bidder on the RentACoder post has the same username as the creator of this article. Paid editing is never welcome at Wikipedia, that's why Jimbo banned MyWikiBiz and MichaelJCummings. And per above. MER-C 12:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 03:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Puckorius

The article was identified by our COI bot as a possible COI violation because it was created by an SPA with the same name as the water filter Mr. Puckorius is trying to market. I would say that there must be better ways to market a water filter than to write a Wikipedia article about a guy who gets a grand total of 63 Ghits. The article states that "Puckorius has worked for over 50 years..." and yet he is only 57 years old. I guess he started designing that water filter when he was 7. He is a non-notable engineer, on the level of tens of thousands of other engineers who have done some industrial work. Within this context, he is not prominent. Qworty (talk) 13:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he is plugging his water filter so much as flattering himself. Is vanity better than spam? Whatever. Delete. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the issue at hand is the reference to the water filter - shouldn't that simply be removed?

I felt he was notable for his global work in water treatment, specifically in regards to Legionella. Should that area be further expanded to properly qualify for inclusion?

While I understand there are a lot of engineers I do think he has more then a few unique "Special Credentials?"

Coolnsave (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are, so far, a WP:Single-purpose account, meaning that you have edited solely on one topic: [122] Because your user name is the same as that of a product that is described in the article, our WP:COI bot tagged the article as a potential conflict of interest, possibly a WP:AB. You should become aware of all of these policies if you intend to continue to edit here, as well as WP:N. I'm sorry to be spouting all of these rules to you, but they are some of the rules we live by around here. If you can find WP:RS that support the notability of the article, you should find them now and include them in the article. Let us know, in this space, of your additions. Perhaps then the subject will be considered notable by enough editors for inclusion here. You might also benefit from reading WP:ARTICLE. Best of luck, Qworty (talk) 02:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reviewing all the documentation I've been pointed at and have already made a few deletions from the the page including "Recent Work" and "External Links. I will collect references for the list of Special Credentials and get those posted ASAP. I am assuming the two remaining references are acceptable, if not please advise. Thank you. Coolnsave (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources about the subject, and also verifiability concerns given that the information has him born in 1950 and worked on the systems for over 50 years, that makes for quite the chemical engineering prodigy. -- Whpq (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article fails WP:N, WP:V, and probably a few more Wikipedia policies. I don't think any amount of rewriting can save it. Red Phoenix (Talk) 15:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alireza Karimi Asl

An apparent autobiography. Page has been recreated several times after speedy deletion, cleanup tags removed. I'm sending it here without any more fuzz. B. Wolterding (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. No indication of importance or significance and as his career started in 2008, he's not likely to be notable any time soon. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. ~~For note, this article has been subject to speedy deletion once already~~ already noted by B. Wolterding. Booglamay (talk) 14:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. There's no need to keep deleting this over and over again. Qworty (talk) 04:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: AfD notice was removed (and restored) for the 3rd time now. --B. Wolterding (talk) 10:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: AfD notice has been removed (and restored) for the fourth time now. User is consistently blanking their talk page, but I've added a level-four warning with regards to removing deletion templates. Booglamay (talk) 10:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete There's not even an attempt at asserting notability. Edward321 (talk) 23:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It has already been speedily deleted umpteen times, under different titles [123] [124] [125]. Let's make a clear decision now, then salt the article. --B. Wolterding (talk) 23:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 03:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emanate

Non-notable album from barely notable musician. No release date. Incomplete tracklist. No sources. Kww (talk) 12:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums—little or no media coverage, no chart hits. Also crystal ballism, and no references = fails WP:V. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 12:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 14:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frozen noodles

Frozen noodles are n oodles that are frozen. All we need now is sources for this blindingly obvious fact and we'd have a valid directory entry. Pity Wikipedia isn't a directory or collection of random information, really. Guy (Help!) 12:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:It's a WP:COATRACK for the link to T & T Supermarket.Kww (talk) 12:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fixed during discussion.Kww (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified keep if sourcing can be found by the end of this AfD and a rewrite is actually done. I'm going to take a look now. Strikes me to be a not unworthy subject, little different than many other food articles, but of course the masquerading-as-advertising aspect of the present article has to go.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please see the new version of the article I just posted. There are a ton of other sources that could be used. I couldn't access it without subscription but check this out. I'm sometimes amazed when searching for sources the things found one would never imagine existed; a scholarly journal devoted to food texture!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think "frozen food" covers this one. --Auto ^{(talk / contribs)} 13:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. Kind of silly, but still relevant!! Dwilso 15:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:It is a little too obvious that "frozen noodles" are noodles that are frozen, but the rest of the information is relevant, although short and needs re-organization. —— The Unknown HitchhikerO 15:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and suggest speedy keep or reconsideration of the nomination? The article seems to have been completely rewritten by Fuhghettaboutit, and as such no longer described by the nomination. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A fine article. Bravo Fuhghettaboutit! Colonel Warden (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as rewritten. Good sources show it's a subject of engineering and scholarship. Good job there. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination suggested that this was nothing more than a dictionary definition of something "blindingly obvious"; when in fact, this is a rather detailed article about an entire industry. I'm sure that fried chicken and canned soup and creamed corn seem blindingly obvious too. Mandsford (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - obvious but notable. Think outside the box 20:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This nomination is just plain silly. Boiled eggs are eggs that are boiled, are we going to nominate that too? Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It's often hard to tell what can be turned into an article and what can't. I wasn't sure before I went looking that there was going to be anything to write about, and I am very much in the camp of fix it before the Afd ends or get rid of it. We give way too much leeway to unverified but verifiable. In my opinion this issue has and continues to do great damage to the encyclopedia.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - frozen noodle is gaining huge popularity all over the world — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
Keep. Plenty of references, ample encyclopedic value, et cetera. (jarbarf) (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's obvious what it is, but we don't omit the cat article just because people know what cats are. This article needs some work, but there's the potential for a very useful and notable article.Ketsuekigata (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 03:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

El Presidente 2 (Title Not Known Yet)

One very weak source. No tracklist. No release date. Future release date was 6 months ago, and nothing has happened since. Kww (talk) 12:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This a terrible article, short of any solid facts it has been cobbled together as a confusing pile of speculation and the unsourced comments of one of the band members. It will need to be completely rewritten when/if the album is released so lots get rid of it in the meantime. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 14:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nom. ≈ The Haunted Angel 17:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - no reliable sources, no evidence of notability, strong evidence of a copyright violation. Bearian (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Hideout

AfDs for this article:

This article does not establish notability of this radio show and has no references. This show has bounced from station to station for years, has not gained enough of an audience to establish itself. We cant have a wikipedia article for every local radio show out there. Rtphokie (talk) 12:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of the radio show is that it's been on in multiple major markets, is known to, and related to, several big name radio shows including Ron and Fez, Opie and Anthony, the Monsters in the Morning, and Don and Mike. It's not just another local radio show, and even if it were I don't see how that is a dis-qualifier considering the other far lesser known shows also with pages. radiogoldenboy (talk) 11:47, 25 March 2008

- Comment I'm willing to withdraw this AFD if sufficient references from reliable sources are added. At present ~~there are no references at all~~ the refernces are not sufficient to establish notability (1 very small local paper and 1 blog).--Rtphokie (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I completely agree that this article should not be deleted. This show has aired in D.C., Orlando, New York City, Atlanta, and nationwide on XM Radio. It currently airs locally D.C., and nationally on XM. I do agree that references are needed. However, it appears the article has been written by someone with firsthand knowledge of the show's history, because of the lack of reputable print or internet sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.100.64.164 (talk) 03:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Comment If insufficient verifiable sources are available, this article should be deleted per WP:OR. Wikipedia does not publish original research. The only references found to date is mention of the Orlando's show's cancellation on a radio blog on the Orlando Sentinel website and a tiny newspaper in Falls Church. Reliable sources should be much easier to come by for a notable show.--Rtphokie (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment like others have said this show has aired in Atlanta, new york, DC, Orlando, Lansing, and all across the us and Canada on XM. also why can't we have a wikipedia article for every local show out there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.134.129.206 (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FYI, this article is currently being reviewed for copyright concerns. It's almost entirely made up of a direct copy from the WTKS website. --Rtphokie (talk) 01:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment The information on here that is on WTKS's webpage was copied from here. Here is a Quote from one of the Hosts (J-Dubs):

"(21:16:22) jdubshideout: I did it so i know... the wiki page went up before we were even on in orlando"

- Comment First check Rtphokie's actions, he clearly has a vendetta against DC based radio shows, for whatever reason. Second, the whole 'copyright infringement' is nonsense as the WTKS page was in fact a copy of the wikipedia page, not the other way around. Thirdly the very fact that this is being debated this much is reason enough there should be a page, there is after all a page for a very obscure book about Jabba the Hutt, so a still on the air radio show in a major markey is hardly able to be disputed as deservering a page. radiogoldenboy 9:12, 07 April 2008 (UTC)

If you don't believe that is him just send him an email or talk to him in AIM So there is no copyright issue.

Walt1028 (talk) 01:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete copyvio. The history link speaks for itself.B.Wind (talk) 06:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --MCB (talk) 07:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

El Diario De Eddie Avila

no sources aside from a forum. No tracklist. No producer. No release date. Excessively crystalline Kww (talk) 12:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 14:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it's not a crystal ball, it's fantasy. B.Wind (talk) 06:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 09:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Top Ten mutual funds

This is a contested PROD. I see it as an indiscriminate list article without encyclopaedic value. There is already an article on US mutual funds. The information is not useful for investment purposes and it does not illuminate any encyclopaedic topic that I can see. At best, it seems equivalent to sports stats. It could open the floodgates to hundreds of similar articles in which the performance of various types of collective investments are ranked over various time periods by various criteria. Lets leave this task to the specialist financial press and just link to them when we need to. The author disagrees so lets see what the consensus is. DanielRigal (talk) 11:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This seems like a spam magnet, a WP:COATRACK for advertisement, difficult to maintain (given the plethora of analysis firms that could offer an opinion if asked), a WP:COI magnet, and an argument waiting to happen. Of course, it's an inherently notable subject and numerous reliable sources can be found (for any given financial year) so policy may not support deletion. I'm leaning towards delete per WP:IAR. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 21:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not Jim Cramer (cue the bull sound effect and Hallelujah chorus), and we shouldn't be putting up arbitrary lists of top funds and such. Personally I think these lists are less constructive and more 'my fund is better than yours' schoolyard teasing by big guys in suits. Nate • (chatter) 22:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is performance data. We might as well publish every year's Foolish Four, or some other metric, and give parts of articles over to tracking corporate stock prices. This is outside the purview of an encyclopedia and comes dangerously close to investment advice. --Dhartung | Talk 23:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cheers!Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per above, and also are we now giving advice without a securities license? --65.16.61.35 (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 07:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetune Desktop

No assertion of notability and unreferenced, fails WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS. Note article about Finetune was deleted (see AfD). Visor (talk) 11:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Visor (talk) 11:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Unsourced article, unremarkable software. • Anakin ^(talk) 13:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is short and provides no reliable sources. Dwilso 15:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Unsourced, unreferenced article about a software product. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable and no sources. Think outside the box 20:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

Procedural nom. This article has been PRODed three times now, so I felt it was probably a good idea to bring it here and see if we can get a consensus since the PROD was removed without explanation the first time and two other people since have felt it should be deleted. The reason for the last PROD read "unreferenced stub article on non-notable local politician and unsuccessful general election candidate." As this is a procedural nom, I am neutral at this time. Redfarmer (talk) 10:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I tried to discern some idea of notability, but I think we really need a person who knows the struture of Irish politics to step into this one. I can't tell what level of government he is in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autocracy (talk • contribs) 11:08, 24 March 2008
Delete. The guidelines are clear on this, councillors are non notable as are candidates to a legislature. If they are elected they then meet the criteria and become notable. As this person failed in their election bid in 2007 they are non notable. - Galloglass 11:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and WP:BIO#Politicians. JohnCD (talk) 11:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JohnCD unsuccessful election candidate who is not a member of a regional legislature. Valenciano (talk) 12:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say delete, but I'm not sure what level of government a "Councillor" sits on. Can you confirm it's sub-regional? Also, he succeeded in 2004. --Auto ^{(talk / contribs)} 13:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He is a member of Donegal County Council, which runs some local services in County Donegal. Irish county councils have limited powers (they do roads, refuse, parks, development planning, libraries etc but not schools, health, or national roads) and they have almost no revenue-raising powers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS To answer the question directly, yes it is sub-regional. Regions in Ireland are inconsistent defined, but for most purposes in the Republic of Ireland Donegal would be part of a North-West or Connacht/Ulster region, including at least County Donegal, County Sligo, County Leitrim. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It was me who added the latest PROD, with the reason "unreferenced stub article on non-notable local politician and unsuccessful general election candidate", which still sums up my view. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The history is interesting revealing that the same editor Padraig removed the first prod tag without a reason, and when the prod was reinserted, he removed it again saying it could not be prodded a second time! Hopefully there is no connection between the user and the article's subject; that would be WP:COI. ww2censor (talk) 14:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No I have no connection with the subject, I removed the first prod because it was inserted by a user conypiece who prod tagged around twenty Sinn Féin and Republican related articles at the same time.--Padraig (talk) 16:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say you had, I just hoped you had not, and you have confirmed that. It was just coincidence as I expected and no offence was meant but your history of removing the first prod without giving any reason stands true. ww2censor (talk) 19:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see which other articles were tagged by Conypiece, but a lot of stub articles were created last year on Sinn Fein politicians whose only apparent claim to notability was that they were local councillors and/or general election candidate, and this article is one of them. Before removing PROD or other tags, it's best to assess whether the tag was justified, rather than just reverting because you don't like the editor concerned. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Comment. Why the exclamation mark? The user was quite correct that an article can't be prodded a second time - see WP:PROD#Conflicts. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? To make the point, as already written above, that it was the same editor, who removed the first prod without any comment or reason, who then removed the second prod because it had been prodded before. He should have addressed the prod issue in the first place which he did not do. Ok. ww2censor (talk) 14:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm very inclusionist on local politicians, and it's possible that this one would meet my criteria, but neither anything in the article nor anything I've been able to find on the web demonstrates this. No prejudice against re-creation if significant coverage by reliable third party sources crops up. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think that either being one of 29 councillors in a county with a population of of 150,000 or being a parliamentary candidate is enough for notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per wiki notability guidelines. Even if notability is a silly concept. What difference does it make if the page did stay. Doesn't cost anybody anything. It's not as though people need to use the page name or anything. Flawed system.--Play Brian Moore (talk) 14:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deletion (G3). -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Himnisfier Syndrome

There is no reference to this on Google or Google Scholar. The "Australian panflit from 1009" may be a typo, but the whole thing reads oddly; and what is the reference to Jake Doland from Emmerdale doing? Despite the "under construction" tag, I don't think we need to wait before we Delete this as a hoax. JohnCD (talk) 10:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Accompanying statistics don't correlate and, really, if there were such a disease/syndrome, it should get a few hits on Google or G-Scholar. CiTrusD (talk) 10:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually a fascinating read. But completely unsourced. If it's still completely unsourced when the AfD is closed, obvious delete per WP:V. If the author can make it a bit funnier they should uncyclofy it.• Anakin ^(talk) 13:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merged and redirected to Lincoln Akerman School. --MCB (talk) 07:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln Akerman

Non-notable. Pretty much died in World War II defusing a bomb and got a school back home named after him because he was the first soldier from a small town to die in that war. Not much else in the article Nobunaga24 (talk) 10:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A civic building was named after him, so somebody will be curious to look up who the man was. Notable enough to provide an answer of some kind, even if he may not have a research paper written about him. --Auto ^{(talk / contribs)} 10:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is there an article about the building? If so, I think it would be better to cover this there. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the building itself actually has significant notoriety. --Auto ^{(talk / contribs)} 13:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article about the school, this could be a subsection of that. I really find it hard to accept that having a building named after you in a town of 2,000 people is sufficient to incur enough notability to be in wikipedia though. There are literally millions of buildings throughout the world named after people, and as selfless as his actions might have been, I don't think it warrants an article.--Nobunaga24 (talk) 14:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Lets delete this and redirect. There is already a short mention of him in the article about the school. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the school article and redirect. Richard75 (talk) 16:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Classic not-a-memorial fare. --Dhartung | Talk 23:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to article of school. Deletion is not advisable to preserve the history. B.Wind (talk) 06:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per A7 Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Floo Network (web ring)

A webring. Yes, you read that right, a webring. No sources, no evidence of significance, reads as WP:OR. Guy (Help!) 10:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snowball Keep --JForget 23:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oxbridge

Per WP:NOT#OR this page reads as an unpublished synthesis of original research lacking citations; while the term is a valid portmanteau it does not qualify for an article in its own right. The article has been tagged with {{refimprove}} since July 2007 and there have still been no reliable sources added for verification. Coldmachine^Talk 10:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think that this is an encyclopedic topic, as it features prominently in British political and social discussions about education and class and is pretty thoroughly discussed in that context. It's on par with the US Ivy League. What's there now though is almost entirely OR and not really relevant to the actual significance of the term, especially the stuff about the cities they're located in and the other schools in the area. (Oxford's city centre is more industrial than Cambridges? And so?) I'm not really sure if the answer is "massive rewrite" or "nuke it from orbit and try again" though. I lean toward delete. Kate (talk) 14:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That pretty much sums up my position exactly; while the idea of an article on this topic has some merit (e.g. a short stub explaining where the term comes from and what it signifies) nearly all of the current article content is original research; it's essentially unsourced editorial opinion at the minute and it would need, as you say, a total rewrite to fix - I don't think that's a practical solution. Best to nuke and start again IMO. Coldmachine^Talk 15:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think that some original research in the article means that the whole thing needs to be deleted. I believe that OR is only used as a criteria for deletion if the very topic is original research or unverifiable, which in this case it is clearly not. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The problem is that it's not some of the article, but all of it which constitutes original research. The entire article, which isn't particularly trim, contains one reference...a rewrite is another solution but it would require an entire rewrite, not just a patchup job. Coldmachine^Talk 16:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. AfD is not cleanup. The article may contain some original research, but it does not seem to be entirely that. Part of the issues may come from the fact that the article discusses some of its sources in-text, such as the Thackeray. Other parts may just need to have citations added. There may be some more meandering here that might support a separate article like Comparison between Oxford and Cambridge Universities or something like that. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The AfD is not for a cleanup, it's for a deletion, as the nomination specifies, under WP:NOT#OR. Quoting that rule directly: Wikipedia "is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge." This article obviously reads as an editorial opinion which is particularly obvious since it lacks any citations whatsoever. Coldmachine^Talk 17:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and reference better. It's definitely a notable term, and probably much more significant than the likes of TomKat. I'm sure references could be found.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's easy to cite any or all of this. I just added a cite and there are thousands of scholarly sources. Deleting this would be like deleting Ivy League. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: with respect, an analogy between Ivy League and Oxbridge is entirely misplaced. The Ivy League actually exists as an organisation (an athletic organisation from which the term originated). Oxbridge is a portmanteau - it's not an organisation, it doesn't actually exist. This article reads as an editorial opinion on the similarities and differences on two UK universities; a more appropriate analogy would be if I were to create an article discussing the similarities and differences of Manchester University and Liverpool University. There appears to be misunderstanding about the term. Coldmachine^Talk 17:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We already have an article about Red Brick universities like Manchester and Liverpool. That's a well-known concept too and not at all original. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but there's no Liverchester article as far as I can see, and the Red brick universities article does not deign to draw comparisons or differences between the universities it mentions. It simply explains the origins of the term and the foundation of the civic university movement, and to be honest most of that article content is encapsulated within Wiktionary which is where this sort of material should be kept. This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary of terminology or a publisher of personal essays or original thought. Coldmachine^Talk 17:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. The problems with this article can clearly be addressed by cleanup, ergo this is not a deletion issue. A very real and obviously encyclopedic subject for which there is a plethora of available sources: [126], [127], [128], [129], [130], [131], [132], [133], [134], [135] (and that was just from a quick google search). PC78 (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete is a pretty lame opinion from someone who ought to know better given their AfD experience, but that really does sum up my position on this one. The article could be cut back to a stub and improved from there, or simply improved from where it is - I have no strong opinion on that question. However, I do feel that the subject has an important place in British culture and that wikipedia would be sadly lacking without an article of that name. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 21:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article may not be well written at the moment (though I've read far worse) but this is an important subject, common in UK discussion, and should certainly be kept. Stephen Turner (Talk) 21:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are problems of OR here but they can be solved. I suggest deleting everything below the heading "History of the term Oxbridge" and start the cleanup from there. Indeed I was tempted to do that now. This term is important because for most of the history of english universities these were the only two. They still have features, like a full collegiate system for admissions and teaching, and the curious BA after 9 terms and MA after 21 terms that are found nowhere else in England. The term is also of course in wide use. --Bduke (talk) 22:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but cut down to size: I'm in sympathy with Coldmachine, but I don't see the need for a delete and start again approach. To define what's meant by Oxbridge, we need something, but much of the present text (including all comparisons between Oxford and Cambridge) is simply extraneous to an article called Oxbridge. Perhaps the answer is to split much of this article off into another with a more appropriate title, as suggested by Smerdis of Tlön. Xn4 23:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but trim aggressively. I believe some of the article is probably WP:OR that is essentially unsourceable, but this is an obviously notable term/concept and deserves a proper article. This isn't unsalvageable, it just needs a thorough rewrite and sourcing. --Dhartung | Talk 23:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Oxbridge" is a very common term, and as a Cambridge student I myself have visited this site. For someone outside the UK not aware of Cambridge and Oxford this article would be of much use. Citations are needed, but article is useful and interesting, and thus should not be deleted. 23:44, 24 March 2008 (GMT)
Keep and split. Oxbridge is notable enough an idea to deserve its own article, talking about the concept itself, which has very wide currency and a long history. The long running notable rivalry between these universities (which isn't germane to Oxbridge) could easily form an article - perhaps Competition between Cambridge and Oxford Universities? Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - definitely merits an article DJLayton4 (talk) 04:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but trim agressively or split. I'm with Bduke and/or Mostlyharmless on this. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It looks as if consensus is for keep; that's fine, and I accept that outcome. The upside is that perhaps there are now editors to whose attention this article has now been brought, who will be bold enough to make the necessary and aggressive fixes to make this article encyclopaedic, which can only be a good thing since nobody seemed willing to do so since the article was tagged July 2007. Coldmachine^Talk 08:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited accordingly. Smerus (talk) 10:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of World War II veterans

A list made redundant by categories, see the various sub-categories of Category:Military personnel of World War II. Leithp 09:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Leithp 09:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I had worked on this list myself considerably, both with this account and as an anonymous IP back when I first discovered wikipedia. It's an unmanageably long list that is frequently used by people to insert names of relatives, friends, neighbors, etc. Given the number of people who are WWII vets with articles on wikipedia, and no clear criteria other than having been in the military in WWII, the list could potentially become ridiculously huge. The category handles it well enough.--Nobunaga24 (talk) 09:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Might want to look at these too: List of Vietnam War veterans, List of Korean War veterans, List of Spanish-American War veterans, List of World War I veterans, List of Mexican-American War veterans, List of Gulf War veterans--Nobunaga24 (talk) 10:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If someone wants to nominate these for deletion, I'd be more than happy to vote delete for these as well. 23skidoo (talk) 12:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, lean delete. See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lists_of_military_veterans. I was going to suggest that I'd not be averse to a Lists of World War II veterans that led to more succinct lists, but the problem is probably simply that we need lists not defined by such a broad scope as "veteran", even of a single war. Surprise! Chiang Kai-Shek was a World War II veteran! So is somebody named Dwight D. Eisenhower! The list is tilted in odd ways, some sections being non-military notables like actors, other sections being a rundown of the decorated veterans (like Puerto Rico). (And since Puerto Rico doesn't have its own military, maybe it shouldn't be listed separately at all!) Too many problems. --Dhartung | Talk 10:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yip, looking at it now, it borders on the absurd. Queen Elizabeth is on the list, as well as Robert Glankler, U.S. Army, hardware shop owner ;)--Nobunaga24 (talk) 10:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is basically an indiscriminate collection of information and categories are more useful for this kind of thing. --Nick Dowling (talk) 11:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant and unmaintainable. There were hundreds of thousands of WWII veteans! 23skidoo (talk) 12:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Millions, actually. Your figure just covers the US. --Dhartung | Talk 23:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per directly above. Further elaboration: there's no way we can manage this list. Use a category for those who have articles. --Auto ^{(talk / contribs)} 13:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. KTC (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While it's not an indiscriminate list, there were millions of participants in World War II and most of the notable persons born in the 1910s and 1920s were involved in the Second World War. The effort is appreciated, but it's unmanageable. Mandsford (talk) 18:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having added to this list many times, I am now also of the opinion that it should be deleted. It has become too large and really doesn't add much to the overall wiki project. The real question now should be asked if we should also nominate the other war veterans lists. Spacini (talk) 20:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. I will definitely support a delete for those, I'm just too lazy to nominate them.--Nobunaga24 (talk) 23:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aron's Algorithm

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Aron's Algorithm

Non-notable "hello world" application. Ineligible for CSD and PROD has been removed by author previously. SMC (talk) 09:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I tagged this for CSD, I think. It's definitely not notable. George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^Help 09:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No, I tagged one that was very similar. It's not notable. My point still stands. George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^Help 09:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not for hosting school project descriptions. --Dhartung | Talk 10:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOT#HOST. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't see any kind of value for this here.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:It's a homework assignment! --Auto ^{(talk / contribs)} 13:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per all. Fails notability, article is bad written. Many problems to keeping this thing. Zero Kitsune (talk) 22:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Bduke (talk) 06:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cairo Regional Internet Exchange

Non-notable internet exchange which is currently orphaned (but for one article). It gives a reference but the subject doesn't look like a notable organization. PeterSymonds | talk 07:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Compare with PAIX, MAE-East and others. While the IX pages have poor form, they are notable. --Auto ^{(talk / contribs)} 13:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An important part of the Internet infrastructure. I've put some reference in the article which demonstrate this. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 09:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sent to the gallows

Does not meet WP:MUSIC. Page was previously deleted (A7) 3 times in February 2008. The page was recreated today by Metalskitz. After I requested csd, Metalskitz187 removed the csd tag. Metalskitz187 appears to be a sock puppet of article's creator. Taroaldo (talk) 07:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt, no assertion of notability, and no evidence of that article creator cares. hateless 08:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 PeterSymonds | talk 08:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Bduke (talk) 06:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Joy

Non-notable model whose only claim to fame is appearing on SuicideGirls. Fails WP:BIO; no independent, reliable, third-party sources, just MySpace, Crave, blogs, etc. Article is likely WP:COI or autobiography.Delete. MCB (talk) 06:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really a model, published photographer, and accomplished web designer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gogogo12 (talk • contribs)

Web designers are not usually considered notable, unless there is substantial third-party references or comment on their work. As for "published photographer", where is her work published? Is it self-published (i.e. on a web site)? If she has had notable gallery or museum shows, they should be referenced. MCB (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Portland Mercury, Village Voice are fine references. Da-rb (talk) 15:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, the Village Beat is NOT the Village Voice. --MCB (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Having photos of oneself on Flikr and MySpace etc. doesn't scream out notability. Can't find any sources. I suspect this is more self-publicity. Camillus (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, borderline advertising, no indication of genuine notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep appears to have enough reliable sources to pass general notability. Admittedly not by much. Article needs cleanup, and I'm not sure how much of the article will be left after the fluffiness is removed. Horrorshowj (talk) 23:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 07:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vegeta Vs. Recoome

Unnotable, probably even within the Dragon Ball Z article. αѕєηιηє ^t/_c 06:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an out of context plot element from a single episode or movie.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 06:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quite Notable. -- Pacifif Adventurer (talk) 06:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per TorchWoodwho. hateless 10:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Not notable, no references, not well written, and ALL information thaat could possibly be given to the article could be foudn within another article about the show or an episode. --Bigvinu (talk) 14:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Let's go easy here. This is the first article the author (who's commented here) has written, and it was tagged six minutes after creation. Still, it does not meet the notability guideline, and I think its safe to say it never will. Xymmax (talk) 16:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - extremely minor plot event. Not notable. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 18:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are thousands of fights in dragon ball. Creating an article for each one is not necessary--Tintor2 (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not finding any reliable sources to suggest that this, of all the fights in the series, is particularly notable. No redirect, as this isn't a plausible search term and more than one possible target. The editor is encouraged to improve existing articles with relevant information, and if any of that work warrants spinning out, that can be done afterwards. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely non-notable. Fails WP:FICTION. --Farix (Talk) 21:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Oh wow, good find. (jarbarf) (talk) 17:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep after rewrite. Sandstein (talk) 19:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zhu Xen Niang Niang

Translated from another language very poorly. I cannot understand most of it, and as such, if the original creator needed to translate it with the use of a tool which they more than likely know doesn't really work, then we cannot ask them to help out with fixing the English, I would imagine. I doubt anyone else will be able to fix the article, as I doubt they will be able to salvage much from it. Also, even though this is supposed to be an 'encyclopaedic' article, I still don't even get the most basic thing which should be conveyed - what 'Zhu Xen Niang Niang' is! αѕєηιηє ^t/_c 06:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am at a complete and utter loss to try and explain this. May very well be a Babelfish translation. Even though this may be in good faith, speedy delete as nonsense. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is indeed a Google (or Babelfish) translation of this Chinese Wikipedia article linked inside the text. There doesn't seem to be any non-Chinese article linked to it. Unless someone is willing to chuck this into a needing-translation bin, we should probably delete. --Dhartung | Talk 07:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just have no idea what to do with this page short of asking an expert, but it can't stay like it is.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 09:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep restubbed and fixed it. More hits as "Songzi Niangniang" or "Sung Tsu Niangniang"; "Zhusheng Niangniang" is just the Taiwan name, according to one of the sources. Still needs an expert cuz I'm way out of my depth on all this Taoism stuff and the sources can't even agree on her name, her relation to images of Kuan Yin, etc. cab (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to keep. Nice save. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. —Lowellian (reply) 21:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. New article written, notability established. --Dhartung | Talk 04:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 07:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Funco File

Non-notable book by non-notable author, and mostly WP:COPYVIO to boot. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not copyvio by the look of it, but Google only gives me 750 or so results. Non-notable, delete.
Delete. Not Encyclopedic enough, and not reliable sources. Dwilso 15:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It could be kept if there were some reliable sources about it, but in its current state it is not sourced and its notability is thus totally undemonstrative. DJLayton4 (talk) 03:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It isn't even a proper article: it just copies the blurb on the back cover of the book. That is probably a copyright violation, but even if it isn't, it's just totally pointless and uninformative; it isn't even a stub. Certainly not something you expect to find in an enclycopedia. Richard75 (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --jonny-m t 16:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry Rosenthal

Nominated for WP:CSD#A7 deletion, but I declined because I feel it at least asserts notability, although weakly, with its lone credit. It has also been deleted twice previously, once through CSD and once through PROD, so it deserves a trip through AFD now. Procedural nomination only, no opinion. KrakatoaKatie 06:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I put some good effort into a search for sources about Gerry Rosenthal, but there's nothing out there about him other than articles that mention his voicing of Jimmy Hopkins, and those that list his few appearances as extras. There's just not enough information about him to make an article. McJeff (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: His most notable role was voicing Jimmy Hopkins, but apart from that he hasn't done anything notable to warrant his own article. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 19:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --jonny-m t 16:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Gallagher (disambiguation)

One notable person and 3 redlinks, for which I can find nothing substantial. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete next time prod this one, unless a prod is removed, this seems like a textbook non-controversial deletion. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 15:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too little blue to make a useful dab page. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep - the article has undergone a significant improvement during the discussion. --jonny-m t 16:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Bloxham

~~Possibly non-notable basketball player. Was tagged for WP:CSD#A7 speedy deletion, but he has too much press for me to be comfortable with that. David Eppstein (talk) 05:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)~~ Keep. There's enough there for me now, and I'm happy to have my intuition not to speedy this one proved right. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not for me. :) Delete as non-notable. All of the press seems to be about this young man's scoring in Friday night basketball games. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Non-notable. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete The "press" are ~~high school~~ sports results. This is your typical "I made an article about myself (or a buddy)" that clutters up the new page patrol every minute of every day. DarkAudit (talk) 14:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete; snow. 9Nak (talk) 15:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think this should be speedied until someone familiar with New Zealand basketball can chime in. This guy has a profile at AustraliaBasket.com (part of the Eurobasket family) and appears to play for the Nelson Giants of New Zealand's National Basketball League. Unfortunately, I know very little about the the New Zealand NBL, so I can't say if that confers any notability... Zagalejo^^^ 18:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If he is notable, then it's best to blow up this article and start over. The only thing salvageable here is the subject's name. Everything else is crap. DarkAudit (talk) 18:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and start over Per the Nelson Giants home page, this guy does play for the team. That would pass WP:ATHLETE. This article, though, is absolute garbage. DarkAudit (talk) 18:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If he's really notable someone will find more convincing sources and evidence of notability and recreate the article. If not I suspect it wouldn't in the grand scheme of things make much of a difference. Iamblessed (talk) 17:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As has already been said he passes WP:BIO by playing at the top level, and it's perfectly possible to rewrite an article without deleting it first - in fact I've just done so. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and kudos Nice save by Mr. Bridger. DarkAudit (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nice job. I can see you are a iclusionist, Bridger. You just removed one of my proposed deletions. Mm 40 _{Your Hancock Please} —Preceding comment was added at 21:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was {{db-author}}. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solar Energy: Myths and Truths

This is an essay that presents a particular point of view. This is not an encyclopedia article and with a title like this, unless there is a book that exists with this title I doubt it will ever be one. JuJube (talk) 05:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All my research time is trying to do is dispel the myriad of stereotypes and myths that surround renewable solar energy. How would you propose I shape this into a proper wikipedia article if this one does not suffice?

Also, our grand plan is to somehow merge a refined version of this page with the solar energy article, or any other article in the renewable energy category. Please let me know how I can properly contribute to wikipedia. Soggypenny (talk)

Comment While citing WP:NPOV is correct, a little time should be given to this new editor, who has expressed on my user talk page that the user will upload "the rest" of the article tonight. I'd say give that time for him to finish and then judge the article for its face value. I do have to point out though, that this article is part of a student project, which I've already told the user that this is not a webspace or an outlet for academic research publications. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 05:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec again x_x) Merge any factual and referenced stuff into Solar energy, and if it gets reverted, discuss on the article's talk page. We don't need a separate page for content fork. JuJube (talk) 05:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you want to develop a section to incorporate into an article in this way it might be more appropriate to do it in userspace. Looking at what is up so far it exclusively deals with the issue from a US perspective, a lot of the myths mentioned will not apply in the same way to other regions, in some cases the oposite may apply. Guest9999 (talk) 05:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a reasonable idea. How does one copy what I have so far into a userspace? I am new to that concept.
Comment - Done At his request, I've created a copy of the article in User:Soggypenny's userspace (which basically was my suggestion on the WP:SANDBOX idea.), located at User:Soggypenny/Sandbox01 - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 05:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thank you Thank you all for helping me out as a fledgling editor. I have received the article in my userspace and will continue to contribute and edit there. Feel free to delete this current wikipedia article if it is necessary, an thank you once again for all of your help. Soggypenny (talk) 06:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Student essay created with the cheeky message: "please refrain from editing this article". -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep as rewritten. --MCB (talk) 07:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mckv

Failure of WP:ORG, no WP:RS, (sidenote: talk in article) - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 05:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —- Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 05:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whilst in it's original state it might have appeared to be non-notable and quite frankly not a very good article, It needed cleaning up and expanding and I have done that as much as I have been able to thus far, and it does seem to be notable. There are plenty of souces online which I am trawling through to use some. It is also affiliated to West Bengal University of Technology. I Have also moved it to the correct title, MCKV Institute of Engineering. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 06:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close retargeted, rewritten article. It remains whether or not Mckv should be retained as a useful redirect, but the appropriate venue for that is WP:RfD instead of AfD. Clearly the all-uppercase MCKV should be used as a redirect or dab page. B.Wind (talk) 06:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Freebass

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If these guys ever get it together and actually put out their debut album (they've been trying since 2004, so they'd better get with it), and if the album actually becomes notable in any way, then maybe they'll deserve an article. Qworty (talk) 04:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Existance is very well sourced (NME, the guardian etc) all sources define this collection as an established group, also contains very notable members. The fact that they may not have released an album is of no consequence. They pass WP:MUSIC criteria 1 and 6. --neonwhite user page talk 05:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cleaned up the article, mainly formatting. --neonwhite user page talk 15:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep They have already played shows , contain notable members from New Order, The Stone Roses and The Smiths and have recorded a track used as The Tube radio show theme. The article is well sourced and I cannot see any benefit from deleting it. Cavie78 (talk) 13:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:MUSIC may be a red herring in this context. I believe the band passes WP:N in its own right. Consider this from the Guardian: The (Tube) producers, north-west-based independent UK1FM, have pulled off something of a coup in persuading Freebass, the collective name for Hooky, Mani and Andy Rourke of New Order, Primal Scream and the Smiths, respectively, to compose the show's signature tune, which, just to complete the name-dropping, has been remixed by the Utah Saints. There's more in the article, but that's notable enough for me. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 21:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moonlet

Page was created as a "neologism not supported by reliable sources". Asteroid moons are not generally known as "moonlets", and in fact a page on them already exists. No sources have been cited to justify this claim. After the page was created, information on the "propeller moonlets" in Saturn's rings was added. These are in fact called "moonlets" in the scientific literature, but there is not yet enough information on them to justify a page of their own. The text in this page is basically pasted over from Rings of Saturn#Moonlets, which covers the topic adequately. BlueMoonlet (t/c) 04:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, old term of 19th century vintage, that has had a variety of meanings even if it has never been a formal term. There are in fact numerous reliable sources that describe Dactyl (moon) as a "moonlet". There are also numerous sources that discuss the sizes and gravitational or impact effects of objects labeled "moonlets". Even if the _propeller_ moonlets are not yet notable on their own, the term is certainly one that deserves coverage separately from just part of the Saturn page. --Dhartung | Talk 07:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources: here NASA defines the term as a small moonlike object that orbits other "small" bodies in the universe. Here an asteroid-moonlet-discovering team uses the term "moonlet" to describe their discoveries. --Dhartung | Talk 07:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A NASA press release is not anywhere close to authoritative. The definition used in that first link does not even apply to the discovery it is reporting -- namely propellers. Saturn is not exactly a a "small" body! --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 13:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And it certainly isn't a neologism: Merriam-Webster dates it to 1832. (It's also in American Heritage and Random-House.) --Dhartung | Talk 07:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The term seems well referenced and notable, and also distinct from asteroid moon due to its more fluid definition. It seems to be used frequently enough in the literature to merit inclusion. DJLayton4 (talk) 07:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - as the person who wrote and then copied over the propeller moonlet paragraph, I think there's a point to this stub, if for no other reason than to being able to wikify the word 'moonlet' when it comes up. However, I don't feel strongly about it. — kwami (talk) 11:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would make it a redirect to Rings of Saturn#Moonlets. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 13:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response It is not a "neologism" in the sense of never having been used before, but treating it as a proper technical term for asteroid moons is a new and unsupported use. Yes, it has been used a few times, but it is not the generally accepted term. A Google Scholar search on "dactyl moonlet" resulted in 21 hits, while a search on "dactyl moon" resulted in 1,230 hits. There is nothing useful in this article that is not already included in Asteroid moon or Rings of Saturn#Moonlets. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 13:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having an encyclopedia article is not the same thing as "treating it as a proper technical term". We are an encyclopedia of ALL knowledge, not just what has passed an IAU committee. --Dhartung | Talk 23:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please identify a single piece of "knowledge" in this article that is not already in Asteroid moon or Rings of Saturn#Moonlets. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 22:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As it stands the article is more of a dictionary definition that an encyclopedia article, in that it is about the word moonlet rather than the thing or things represented by the word, which have their own articles. I would suggest making this a disambiguation page with links to Asteroid moon and Rings of Saturn#Moonlets. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would support that. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 09:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chromatic Death

Non-notable band. Has not released an album. Fails WP:MUSIC. [136] Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 04:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 04:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 04:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No albums, no tours of note, the band is in hiatus. WWGB (talk) 12:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable: this band must be like thousands of other school bands which haven't released anything. I infer it is a school band because an earlier version of the article says it is on hiatus because a member is going off to school. Also, check the edit history: as soon as somebody nominated it for deletion, the person who created the article began removing every paragraph from it until now only one sentence remains -- the removed paragraphs in question each containing facts which tend to show that the band is not notable, eg. the fact that they have no albums or tours, and the fact they are on hiatus. If you write an article which, when you later take out everything which proves it's not notable, consists of only one surviving sentence, then it probably shouldn't have been written in the first place. Richard75 (talk) 01:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As of now, it's a one-sentence stub with no assertion of notability. ~EdGl 23:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of present-day nations and states

Absolutely redundant: ~~category:History by continent~~ category:History by country exists. `'Míkka >t 03:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see a parallel article that lists all of these articles. history by continent lists links to the histories of the respective continents, not their constituent countries. category: History by country has enough subcategories to make it much more difficult to weave through the history of [country] articles. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 04:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see what's so difficult. Each [[:category: History of <XXXcountry>]] includes [[History of <XXXcountry>]] as well as any other useful artices, and it is even more useful than the list in quesiton. `'Míkka >t 05:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's more clicking. It seems to me that the convenience of having the list all on one page outweighs the redundancy. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 06:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. History by country is a category. This is a list. Categories do not replace lists. Lists are easier to navigate than categories. Strong keep per WP:CLN. "Developers of these redundant systems should not compete against each other in a destructive manner, such as by nominating the work of their competitors to be deleted because they overlap. Doing so may disrupt browsing by users who prefer the list system. Also, 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 wastes 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."Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No substantive reason to delete is provided. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems to be an entirely inoffensive article, and there's no reason we shouldn't have both categories and lists for this kind of high-level topic. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a good grouping of countries in case someone needs to use it. There are links to a lot of information, and the reason for deletion isn't strong enough.

—— The Unknown HitchhikerO 16:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This list is really helpful, and much more convenient than a category. Also the nomination is not properly argued in the first place. Richard75 (talk) 16:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment. Frankly, I am baffled. How on Earth it can be helpful??? If I want to find an article about History of Madagascar, I just type "History of Madagascar". Why would I want to go into this page (and how do I know it exists) and then click on the link there???? Well. If you want it, keep it. Harmless. Only waste of space and maintenance effort IMO. `'Míkka >t 01:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You went to the page. You know it exists. You nominated it for deletion. I think you just answered your own question :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should we take this as a withdrawal of your nomination, Mikka? — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 02:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This smells like IDONTLIKEIT. Just because you don't use it doesn't mean that other people don't. It is useful for browsing the "History of Foo" articles. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CLN. (Note to Mikka: Some people like to browse, and lists are very useful for browsing. You can't really browse by typing in text.) Klausness (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as redundant; the "keep" opinions are weakly argued except Richard75's. Sandstein (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History by continent

Absolutely redundant: category:History by continent exists. `'Míkka >t 03:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete when a category:History by continent exists this article becomes un necessary , so i wish to recommend for a delete . ----Pearll's sun (talk) 05:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lots of articles link to this so it is obviously not redundant. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- False. They link via the Template:History by continent, which is an extra argument that this page is redundant. The navigation template is exactly what works, and the discussed article is useless. `'Míkka >t 15:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Instead of deleting them, work hard to expand them. There is the relevant difference between a good editor and others. Marc KJH (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- wht more is there to expand them ?? all infos r available as diff articles as individual . the more the improvement will conflict with those individual articles and will lead to confusion among users .

--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See also the debate immediately above. This is a helpful list, and there is no reason to get rid of it just because there also happens to be a category. A list is easier to navigate than a category. Richard75 (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The guy that proposed it, started to delete almost all my contributions. See his edits. He reverted so far loads of edits in a bias way. See Central Europe Marc KJH (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivial list that doesn't offer anything beyond what the category provides, and is not an encyclopedic topic. --Itub (talk) 13:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment im ready to change my vote if more reasons are provided about why it shouldn't be deleted . --@ the $un$hine . (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant, in that it doesn't seem to be needed in addition to {{History by continent}} and Category:History by continent. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Roth

Does not pass biography guidelines, specifically she is a local politician who has never held any office higher than board of selectmen (i.e. board of alderman/town council in New England). No other indications of notability Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local politicians are inherently non-notable. Running for the state senate does not necessarily make one notable. No evidence of any significant coverage that elevates the subject's notability. DarkAudit (talk) 04:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Local politicians are absolutely not inherently non-notable. "Not inherently notable" and "inherently not notable" are two very different things. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails politician notability standard: [137] Qworty (talk) 04:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Person not important enough for wikipedia. Dwilso 04:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As not notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability is the concern..--Comet styles 10:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability strikes again. iMat thew 20 08 11:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Smalltown political figure is the best claim to fame. Snowball it. --Auto ^{(talk / contribs)} 13:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with Autocracy. PeterSymonds | talk 14:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too local, not notable enough to make it to Wikipedia. We might as well write articles for ourselves.

—— The Unknown HitchhikerO 16:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Salem isn't big enough for its municipal politicians to be notable without having done something exceptional. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 09:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul DJ Bailey

Prod removed, so here we are. Zero hits for exact name, and I can't find anything to confirm the TV or film credits claimed for any other 'Paul Bailey' (and since none of the characters are even named, they'd probably be non-notable bit parts, anyway), and the stage work is probably all school plays, like the specific one cited. Shawisland (talk) 03:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Person not very notable!! Dwilso 04:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. iMat thew 20 08 11:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete. Please note "Prince Charles of France" is a credit. Casualpsycho (talk) 16:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - claims various walk-on parts, school plays...good luck with the piano exam...and I assume that Casualpsycho is the subject of the article, so WP:Conflict of Interest applies. Camillus (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD was not linked on the article's page from 16:53, 24 March to 11:46, 25 March. Fixed now. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 11:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MC Chorbles

This article has been deleted a few times already but it keeps coming back and I suspect that it will continue to, so let's have a discussion. Google search for "MC Chorbles" brings up 10 results; "Blake Fulcher" 7; Fulchorb 2. Claim to notability is that the song Hot Summer Love invited controversy by being a mash-up of Summer Love and Hot Summer Night, although I can't find any coverage of it (at least not by searching for Chorbles Timberlake or Fulcher Timberlake). I am also nominating the following related articles:

Hot Summer Love (song)
The Essence Of Chorb (album) ... discospinster _talk 03:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also adding, on advice of Chris:

NiteRunner, a similarly elusive subject (see Google search of "NiteRunner Presents"). ... discospinster _talk 14:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete and Salt as non notable band, A7. If it keeps coming back, it's probably the same author re-creating it. Undeath (talk) 03:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and add NiteRunner to the list--part of the same series, and the only Ghits for "Needles & Haystacks" niterunner or the "aussie street hot 100" are Wikipedia. Shawisland (talk) 03:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, no reliable sources showing notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 09:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough. iMat thew 20 08 11:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I also add to this discussion and nominate for deletion M$C and NiteRunner, which are related articles by the same bloke, again which I feel fail WP:MUSIC, and which have already been deleted once and twice respectively. If people feel they should go separately I'll start a separate discussion, but as far as I'm concerned we should Delete all. Chris (talk) 08:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Kingston Centre

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

Delete Non-notable mall, no source. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 05:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 05:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. iMat thew 20 08 11:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This shopping centre site is under development, just like the article. It's geographic ___location, as a hub within the city, is what gives it importance beyond its current size. Let's go shopping! -Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to have received only local coverage if at all, no notability asserted. Just because it's a community hub doesn't mean it's notable -- malls are meant to be community hubs, that's part of the reason why they're built. My local mall was most certainly intended as a community hub, even though a.) it's down to about 15 stores, and b.) it's smaller than most Wal-Mart stores. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per addition of sources; barely asserts notability but it works. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a fairly large city, and many people seem to go there every, some for travel, just like Gloucester Road, which is notable. Basketball 110 03:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That basically boils down to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The main argument here seems to be that no reliable sources exist to verify the info in the article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Whig Standard info sufficient.

Also, comment: the length of an article is not necessarily relevant to any notability claim. --- Taroaldo (talk) 04:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is in significant need of expansion but should cover more than 50 years of history for the mall on that site. Notability established but a rewrite is strongly called for. - Dravecky (talk) 06:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whig articles plus already included sources are enough non-trivial coverage to establish notability, and I would assume that this new transit center will be included in this article. Joshdboz (talk) 13:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus (NAC). Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 23:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Index of Professional Sports teams in the United States and Canada

Just a collection of lists of sports teams. Is a collection of indiscriminate information and redundant to the lists of teams on articles of the leagues listed here. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 02:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although it's useful, it shouldn't be an article, it should be a category. Thedjatclubrock :-) ^(T/C)
Weak Keep - Strikes me a fairly useful. iMat thew 20 08 11:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. already have articles such as NBA, and NFL. Dwilso 15:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is encyclopedic, and it is organized in a readable format that allows it to be maintained effectively. True, we have articles about the various leagues, but this provides, at a glance, the current information about which cities host which teams. If one wished to be aware of which professional sports leagues have franchises in, say, Denver, and which do not, this is the most efficient way to see that information. Almanacs (World Almanac, ESPN Sports Almanac, etc) have this same feature, such as a section that allows side-by-side comparisons of professional sports leagues, and it's worth keeping and building upon. Mandsford (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's an article like what you're describing over at List of U.S. and Canadian cities by professional sports teams, which has been around a lot longer than this article has and is much better formatted. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a great organization and it provides useful indexing that would be difficult to accomplish from categories alone. I think it should probably be renamed to "List of ...." Johntex\^talk 18:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move It seems like a useful, encyclopedic resource, but the title sounds awkward. It might be easier to find and thus more useful if we moved the page per Johntex. Red Phoenix (Talk) 15:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for several reasons. First, it's a list and not an index. Second, it contains only the upper level leagues in some sports (no Continental Basketball Association, no American Association, no Eastern Hockey League, no South Atlantic League (baseball), no World Team Tennis, and so forth. With the presentation as shown, just doing the baseball leagues would be extremely unwieldy.B.Wind (talk) 06:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Discussion moved to Wikipedia:Deletion review#Hi-C (rapper). ... discospinster _talk 00:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-C (rapper)

I'm bring this to AfD because it's been deleted a few times but I'm not sure if it's obviously non-notable. The article claims that he has recorded for some high-profile labels such as Hollywood Records and Tommy Boy Records, and appeared on songs for well-known rappers. A few of his songs are also in the soundtrack of Malibu's Most Wanted (although I don't think we should hold that against him). He also walked the red carpet (and was attacked) at The Source awards, which was a newsworthy occurrence. For the record, I feel it is a weak keep. ... discospinster _talk 02:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If he was involved in the making of Malibu's Most Wanted, I'm going to vote keep based on this alone, as I found that film to be quite hilarious. I realize my bias however - as a former resident of Ventura County, I was exposed to entirely too many people who acted entirely too much just like the protagonist of that film. Some, almost exactly. So, I found it far funnier than most audiences. Also, this is doubtless part of the reason I now live in Arizona... Zaphraud (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 04:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 04:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although I will admit that I'm primarily motivated toward keep because I've heard his music before. Way back in middle school. damn. Anyway, I fully agree with nom's rationale. hateless 20:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm really not understanding the motivation for this AfD - given the claims and the nominator stating "for the record" that it's a weak keep, this discussion shouldn't technically be taking place. WP:COMMON. I'm also going to go out on a limb and declare that this is going to be a snow clause candidate in the near future. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 20:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I brought this to AfD because the article was being speedily deleted on a regular basis and I didn't feel that it was warranted. I couldn't bring it to WP:DRV because it had been recreated so at that point it wasn't deleted (although it did have a speedy tag). Someone, somewhere, wants it deleted but it shouldn't be speedied so I put it here. If my "for the record" comment muddles it, I can remove it. ... discospinster _talk 00:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC) Edited to add: I have looked more closely at WP:DRV and see that existing articles can, in fact, be reviewed. I'll close this AfD on procedure and move the discussion there. ... discospinster _talk 00:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. per WP:SNOW (non-admin) - Milk's Favorite Cookie 23:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Alex

AfDs for this article:

Not notable outside of the PSP universe.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nakon (talk • contribs) 02:25, March 24, 2008

Speedy keep, this article was unanimously kept less than 2 months ago and I don't see what has changed since then. This individual has been covered by BBC News. --Pixelface (talk) 02:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep on the grounds that this survived an AFD challenge less than 2 months ago. Articles must not be renominated repeatedly in such a short period of time. 23skidoo (talk) 02:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This person is a notable programmer. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nominator uses the phrase "PSP universe" as if he or she thinks this is a fictional person. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is entirely untrue. Nakon 03:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per news coverage and WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED. 'The PSP universe' does make it sound like you're talking about a fictional place, and that could be dangerous for non-technical editors who look at this and don't realize that the person really exists. Also, that's a bad argument to make, as John Dee is probably not notable outside the 'cabalistic universe', and Sally Kern is not notable outside of the 'American universe'. Aside from all this, for his notability, he has received BBC coverage, which has also been posted, and this is essentially a repeat of the previous nomination. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This article doesn't seem notable, but due to the issues brought up above, I'd have to go with weak keep. Thedjatclubrock :-) ^(T/C)
Keep - seems notable enough, and previously had a failed AfD, so it deserves to be on wikipedia..--Comet styles 10:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above comments. iMat thew 20 08 11:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per comments in the previous deletion discussion. Why anyone would suggest deletion of an article so soon after it has survived an AFD discussion is beyond me. Are there no wiki policies to prevent us having to defend and re-justify the article every few months? Skip1337 (talk) 22:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Gazimoff (talk) 10:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, WP:CSD#G12. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eldar Aliev

The entire article is a copyvio, cut and pasted from here: [138]. And who did the cut and paste? The subject himself: [139]. It's bad enough to write a Wikipedia article about oneself. It's even worse to do nothing more than cut and paste an article about oneself. At least put some effort into the self-promotion! Qworty (talk) 02:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Eldar Aliev is a non-notable person. The article is unencyclopedic and it is bad to write a Wikipedia article about oneself. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy 100% Copyvio. csd tagged by me :D Thedjatclubrock :-) ^(T/C)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tegan Summer Productions

Unverifiable. There were no reliable sources in the 21 unique ghits for this company. It's also vanispamcruftisement, see WP:COIN#Tegan Summer. MER-C 02:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. iMat thew 20 08 11:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- this was originally tagged for a speedy, but requested sources were not forthcoming. Also a conflict of interest. J Milburn (talk) 12:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. no reliable sources provided. Dwilso 15:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable per nom. --Beloved Freak 22:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Appears to be self-promotion content for a company that fails WP:CORP. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#ADVERTISING policy and above. — Athaenara ✉ 03:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm not seeing enough support for a specific redirect to add that to the close, so I'll let the question of where to redirect it to be worked out through normal editing. --jonny-m t 04:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yuki Cross

unsure about the notability of this original research. brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - relevant information already present at Vampire Knight. Rest is superfluous and original research. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 10:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - iMat thew 20 08 11:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ~~Vampire Knight~~. I'm not finding much in the way of reliable sources to suggest that this protagonist has acheived notability outside of the series -- and, indeed, surprizingly little chatter about her as herself, given the series popularity. Most of the relevant information seems to already be in the main article, at least in summary form. Her name, however, is a plausible search term, so redirect rather than delete. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing my suggested redirect target to List of Vampire Knight characters as a more appropriate one has been created since the AfD began. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete completely fails WP:FICT and seems to be someone's personal summaries of the manga chapters as they appear in Shojo Beat. Collectonian (talk) 03:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge'/' This information would be very valuable to the article List of Vampire Knight characters as this is a character in Vampire Night. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurowoofwoof111 (talk • contribs) 06:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Note: the list was created after this AfD was started. Collectonian (talk) 06:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Case II

A completely unremarkable resume that was cut and pasted here by the subject himself [140]. Looks like it was speedied a month ago and then the guy came back and recreated it. [141] Would love to have it speedied off the face of the earth and immediately salted if an admin should happen to read this. Qworty (talk) 01:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't expect to read somebody's self-published CV in an encyclopedia. Richard75 (talk) 01:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete No Place on wikipedia what-so-ever. Thedjatclubrock :-) ^(T/C)
Comment. There are a lot of things wrong with the article, but take a look at what Google News turns up: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Robert+Case+II%22 --Eastmain (talk) 04:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The nine Google hits you've found are in reference to the World Journalism Institute, where he is the director. The Institute does appear to be notable, but the Robert Case article doesn't assert any independent notability for Case himself. Qworty (talk) 04:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Autobiography of someone with only associated notability. -- Roleplayer (talk) 11:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. iMat thew 20 08 11:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, since the lack of in depth coverage by reliable sources has not been overcome. Tikiwont (talk) 09:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Three Rs (Website)

Non-notable website that fails WP:RS. The references given are merely from other non-notable websites. The article was created by two of the guys who blog at the site [142]. If that wasn't enough, they then had the gall to use the article to link to their own Wikipedia user pages [143]. What's next? I guess they'll be showing up here soon to tell us how notable they are. Qworty (talk) 01:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sites given are notable. Sites such as Lostpedia (During its deletion nomination) and Floo Network have survived with much less cites then Three Rs. And going by the above nominators logic the article for ABC should also be deleted. -- Dee4leeds talk contribs all 10:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Dee4leeds convinced me. iMat thew 20 08 11:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Anyone else think it's hilarious that Dee4leeds cites a deleted article as having "survived" in support of keeping this one? Richard75 (talk) 16:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: By suggesting the deletion of this article, then you no doubt also call into question the ability for other articles citing ABC or Future Plc. (PC Gamer) as righteous sources - most likely undermining the safety of another 100 articles on Wikipedia. Perhaps if this article was about just the single co.uk site - I would agree. Yet it encompasses all of those within the network - remaining modest and saving space. Richard; you have a damn strange sense of humour. Melaisis (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on COI: Dee4leeds and Melaisis wrote the article. The article is about a blog where Dee4leeds and Melaisis are two of the main contributors. The article not only mentions Dee4leeds and Melaisis, but links to their Wikipedia user pages. Then, when the article is nominated for deletion, the only KEEP votes thus far come from--ta-da--Dee4leeds and Melaisis. This should be archived as a tutorial example of WP:COI. Qworty (talk) 21:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on, this is hardly sock puppetry. I fail to see, despite you bringing it up twice now, Q, the apparent 'fact' that we link to our Wikipedia pages in the article. Yet, I fail to see where. Still, if the masses decide to catalogue us for infamy despite a number of fully verifiable sources, then so be it. Melaisis (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since you're asking, I'll be even more precise. I never accused either of you of being a sock. I said that what you were doing was WP:COI. And I wasn't the first to notice this--the article was intially tagged by our COI bot. As for linking to Wikipedia user pages, this recent version [144] clearly shows that Dee4leeds, in the "Writers" section, used the article to link to his user page as well as yours. After the VfD nomination, Richard75 dewikified your user names [145] because, as he put it in his edit summary, "NOT appropriate to link a Wikipedia article to somebody's userpage!" Of course, you guys already know all about this edit history, so you're stretching good faith here. Fortunately, the edit history gives us the full story. Qworty (talk) 03:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As Qworty has quite correctly stated, this is a "tutorial example of WP:COI" not to mention self-promotion and spam. Delete and salt. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The page no longer links to our wikipedia userpages and is well cited so the decision should be to keep. And reguarding Floo Network it was deleted after the comment without a deletion nomination so if anything shows the injustice of this website. -- Dee4leeds talk contribs all 09:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:ORG. Article is self-promotion WP:COI spam. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopedic, no notability, no independent reliable sources, WP:NOT#ADVERTISING. — Athaenara ✉ 02:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 07:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mouth Bitch

The topic of this article is by no means notable. It describes in huge detail a totally, totally minor and inconsequential character in a film: a character who has no dialogue, only appears in one scene, and is on screen only briefly and largely in the background. I considered recommending merging it with the article about the film, but it really is too minor a topic to write about even in that article, and certainly not for more than a single sentence. Honestly, what is the point of this article? Richard75 (talk) 01:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bad title and not encyclopedic. Dwilso 04:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not encyclopedic. iMat thew 20 08 11:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Callmederek (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, overdone plot summary of a minor character. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was imma deletin mah lazor. krimpet ✽ 16:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shoop da whoop

Unfunny meme with no reliable sources or demonstration of notability. Wikipedia is not Encyclopedia Dramatica. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 01:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't see anything to make me believe it is notable. Google turns up no reliable sources, and neither does the page. Soxred93 | talk bot 01:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IMMA FIRIN MAH LAZAR!!! Lulz-worthy, yes, but not notable or even verifiable as Wikipedia censors links to ED. Delete. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable; perhaps worth a mention in List of Internet phenomena, but not worthy of it's own article. --Ⓔfitu (Ⓣalk) 02:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Deleteagonacus BLAAAAHH JuJube (talk) 05:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and I wouldn't call it a meme, it's at best a in-joke. hateless 08:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom..--Comet styles 10:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. iMat thew 20 08 11:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into List of Internet phenomena Nothing 444 13:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If WP:ANIME wants the content for project purposes, feel free to contact me and I'll provide the relevant text. --jonny-m t 04:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. Shonen Jump issues

The list is a violation of WP:NOT#IINFO and is extremely trivial information at best. There is no encyclopedic propose being served by maintain a list of magazine releases and articles featured in said magazine. --Farix (Talk) 01:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Farix (Talk) 01:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a directory nor a card catalog of magazine issues. Collectonian (talk) 01:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands now, it's pretty useless. What might make sense to have is a table like the ones found in car articles (Template:Kia_Motors is representative), which gives the series that have appeared in U.S. Shonen Jump, and the issues in which they have appeared. So I'd say delete, but without prejudice to recreation in a more organized and useful form. — PyTom (talk) 04:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, like this List of series run in Weekly Shonen Jump :) Collectonian (talk) 04:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could a Merge to Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Magazines be considered? what's in each issue would be a useful tool for people who want to know which issue to request help with. -Malkinann (talk) 04:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't read it myself, so does it have anything more than just manga? Shojo Beat is listed because it also has articles on manga, anime, and Japanese culture. Does Shonen Jump do the same? Collectonian (talk) 04:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to have creator interviews, and ratings information, as well as just manga- I don't read it myself.-Malkinann (talk) 04:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...to be useful in the project list, though, first an editor from the project has to come forth and say they have X issues, then the list of content (in a shorter summary form) would go in a subpage. Collectonian (talk) 18:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd imagine that User:Jump Guru has at least a couple lying about... I've asked him on his talk page which ones he owns. Is it normal practice these days for a bot to inform people about AfDs?-Malkinann (talk) 22:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, depending on how its done, the creator is notified when the AfD is sent (Twinkle does it automatically). Beyond that, I believe a bot recently started running that does also notify recent or major contributers to the article, though not sure how long it takes to hit. Collectonian (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's said on his talk page that he owns every issue from 2006 onwards. I've asked him if he'd be willing for his collection to become part of the referencing system. -Malkinann (talk) 23:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Collectonian's comments. iMat thew 20 08 11:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess delete, unless anyone feels it might be useful for WP:ANIME. -- Ned Scott 06:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Beardmore

No verifiable third-party sources provided. The link to BAFTA doesn't even mention Patrick Beardmore. And this article about Patrick Beardmore was created by--guess who?--Patrick Beardmore[146]. Google hits are thin and mostly self-generated. Looks like a classic case of teenage self-promotion. Qworty (talk) 01:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article does not meet notability criteria. It is shameless self-publication. Richard75 (talk) 01:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - twoud appear that the facts are represented in the article are in fact correct. The BAFTA website does contain the information on the nomination, and I've updated the link to link to the correct page. Does this make him notable? I don't know. A BAFTA nomination I suppose is pretty notable. Canterbury Tail talk 01:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability to come. Nominated for an award is not the same as winning it, although I'm not entirely sure that the "Children's BAFTA" awards are themselves notability-conferring. Considering that the competition included several weeks of instruction, it's more like a summer camp. --Dhartung | Talk 07:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Camp - While the BAFTA website is poorly written, none of the winners (nominees) were on the summer camps. Those were just stunts at the launch. A nation competition then happened, which Patrick Beardmore seems to have almost won, and that was judged by a British Academy panel. Seems like a bona fida competition to me. 213.44.5.51 (talk) 09:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (I already voted) — "almost won" a children's competition isn't exactly notable though, is it? If he had actually won it, or if he "almost won" the Nobel Prize, then fine. Richard75 (talk) 16:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article just doesn't seem to be notable. iMat thew 20 08 11:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nominated for an award, LEGO filming, very common stuff, really. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The BAFTA award is enough. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 16:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted per G4. DRV opened at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 24. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link

AfDs for this article:

Speedy Delete This is a book advertisement that has already been through the Afd process which resulted in deletion. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- lets wait friend , when the article creator is willing to collaborate we need to wait , seeing his intentions he seem's to have been highly involved in this book so he'll be keep on recreating and it wont be nice for both side , let us see if more editors would turn up for a debate so that we may have a common result weather or not to delete . speedy isn't always a solution for all situations . if this article really needs a rewrite or some change then we must insist the creator for it , moreover the creator of this article seems to be ready for it . so let's wait . --Pearll's sun (talk) 01:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC) — Pearll's sun (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Ism schism (talk) 03:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

This is not a book advertisement. It's an information page about a book relating to a theological issue within the Hare Krsna movement. The external links section includes links to various critical perspectives on the book and on the issues it raises.

I missed the Afd process, and found out today, after the fact, that my page was deleted. On March 19th 2008, user "Syama" had written: "Mild Keep Notable, needs a rewrite. I think that the controversy surrounding this book makes it notable, that so many are stirred to action, article should focus on the NPOV of the controversy not just provide links to forum topics."

I'm willing to re-write the article, or parts of it, if deemed needed. The book is notable. The controversy surrounding the book is relevant to those within the Hare Krishna Movement and to those observing or studying it from outside. This is my first Wikipedia article, and I'm learning about how to present things so that they are acceptable to Wikipedia.

Below are some links to articles and spoken word audio, relating to the book, and the associated controversy, from various perspectives:

Delete was the result of the first nomination, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand that the previous deletion was the result of the first nomination, but I did not participate in that process. I did not give my input on why the article should be allowed to continue to exist. I was not aware that the process was taking place. I found out about it today. On March 23rd, 2008, user DGG wrote the following in the History section of my page: "books can not be speedied". I've recreated the page. I'm willing to discuss. --AlexandreJ (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)--AlexandreJ (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

         o http://www.hare-krishna.org/articles/1185/1/Prominent-Issue/
         o http://www.hare-krishna.org/articles/1207/1/Considering-Things-Fully-and-Rationally/
         o http://www.hare-krishna.org/articles/1178/1/Genuine-Dialogue-and-Deeper-Realizations-of-Truth/
         o http://www.chakra.org/discussions/succJun11_06.html
         o http://www.iskconirm.com/Dhira_Govinda.htm
         o http://www.vnn.org/editorials/ET0208/ET15-7499.html
         o http://www.dipika.org/2003/03/10/danavir.swami.on.dhira.govinda.das/index.html
         o http://iskcon.krishna.org/Articles/2003/03/023.html
         o http://www.hare-krishna.org/articles/1177/1/Concerning-the-Satvatove-Experience/
         o http://gbcsaysdontgohere.com/
         o http://www.chakra.org/discussions/SuccFeb4_03_02.html
         o http://www.dipika.org/2003/03/31/dhira.govinda.on.prominent.link/index.html
         o http://www.devavision.org/gosai/audio/03-08-saranagati-prominent1.mp3
         o http://www.devavision.org/gosai/audio/03-08-saranagati-prominent2.mp3
         o http://www.b-i-f.com/Letter%20from%20Dhira%20Govinda%20Das.htm
         o http://zavestkrisne.org/ritviki_neznanje.htm
         o http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/02-07/editorials1312.htm

--AlexandreJ (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G4. Recreating material that failed an AfD is the wrong way to go about things. Take it to DRV instead. DarkAudit (talk) 00:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is DRV? On March 23rd, 2008, user DGG wrote the following in the History section of my page: "books can not be speedied". I've recreated the page. I'm willing to discuss.--AlexandreJ (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review. This was not a speedy the first time through, it was a regular AfD that resulted in a delete. Recreating that page is not accepted procedure, and that recreated page is subject to a speedy deletion per criteria G4, recreation of previously deleted material. You can raise concerns and discuss at DRV. In the meantime, this recreated page should be speedily deleted. DarkAudit (talk) 01:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not participate in the original process. I've now posted to DRV. If I understand correctly, the article was nominated for deletion on March 16th, and was deleted on March 22nd, 6 days later. User "Ism schism" wrote: "Book advertisemet with no reliable third party sources." I've added links to various critical perspectives on the book. --AlexandreJ (talk) 01:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another Speedy delete vote. When creating this page, without realizing it, I also created another page located at, Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link (2nd nomination). Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i don't understand why books that has notability should be speedied ?? we dont work on any set of tough rules moreover any add type or spam concerning articles may be brought under "speed delete" but why books ?? i think we need to discuss a lot with a lot more editors before speeding , else the article creators intention will be undermined , cant hurt any the author is willing to collaborate so we must assist him to get out of the situation instead of speeding his article . the recreation of the article shows that the creator wants to be a part of wikipedia and the article has some meaning for . negotiations should have its role , this article doesn't seem to spam wiki or use it as a basement for any add . lets wait to see what the article creator wishes to do . yup i agree any recreated material must be speedily deleted but this recreation doesn't seem to bring any damage to wiki . i think we need to wait a while and discuss enough before we delete it . this book seems to be notable and a speedy will surely hamper wiki's intention to be self sufficient . i respect both the editor who brought this article to AFT which will help the article to better if needed and the article creator's intention . this article sure needs a high debate ... --Pearll's sun (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC) — Pearll's sun (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Ism schism (talk) 03:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Pearll's sun, thank you very much for this. I appreciate it.--AlexandreJ (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find myself in a complicated process involving technicalities. I created a page. The page was nominated for deletion. I was not aware of this. I work full-time and don't check the page every day. The page was deleted. I've recreated the page. I've now posted to DRV, but it turns out I did it in the wrong place. I'm not sure in which section of DRV I should post my request/concerns. The process of appeal is not clear to me, and appears needlessly complex. I believe my page is valid and I want to speak my piece about why it should remain. I'm an educated person with two University degrees, and I am nonetheless having difficulty making sense of all of the technicalities at play in this process. If I understand what to do, I will do it. I request that the page remain, at least long enough for me to understand why it was labeled as a "book advertisement" and what changes I need to make so that the article is acceptable to Wikipedia. The book is notable, this was already discussed, months ago.

Please understand that I am not as savvy as you are about Wikipedia's hair-splitting rules, and regulations. --AlexandreJ (talk) 01:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. crassic!^[talk] 01:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does "Speedy delete per nom." mean? --AlexandreJ (talk) 02:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reasons are based upon the nominator, User:Ism schism. crassic!^[talk] 02:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that your reason is that the artcile was nominated by this particular person?--AlexandreJ (talk) 02:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It means his reasons for his delete endorsement are the same as the one who nominated the article for deletion. DarkAudit (talk) 02:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of this article has a history of being advised on the article's relevance. Please note a conversation from 2 years ago on the same subject we are discussing here, [147]. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The outcome of those previous discussions was to allow the article to remain. I was naturally surprised to see the article once again scheduled for deletion. I'm willing to do the needful and modify the article so that it is more in line with Wikipedia's guidelines.--AlexandreJ (talk) 02:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The merits of this article are not relevant to the current speedy nomination. This page was recreated in violation of established Wikipedia procedures after a losing AfD. The correct procedure is to speedy delete this page according to G4 criteria, recreation of deleted material. Any discussion with regard to recreating the page should go to deletion review. DarkAudit (talk) 03:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion review page is long and detailed. I posted something there, but afterwards I noticed that I posted in the wrong place. Where should I post my request to allow the page to remain? What is the simplest way to do this? I'm sure there must be a user-friendly way to voice concerns about article deletions on Wikipedia. It would be a shame to have content deleted primarily because the user is not comprehending the appeal process clearly. If you can point me to a link where I can state my case in a simple manner, to the appropriate person(s), I will appreciate it.

Wikipedia is about creating content for research purposes, not about playing the game of who knows more technicalities. You are experts, you know the various complex and nit-picking editorial rules. I am not an expert, you will beat me if we play this as a game. I want to create a page. If Wikipedia is cooperative, not everyone will be experts in the minutiae of editorial policies. If article deletion is played as a sort of game, then naturally those with more technical knowledge of the rules will win. If the article was allowed to remain after the first set of discussions, mentioned by Ism schism, why was it once again scheduled for deletion? I recreated the article because I disagreed with the deletion, and was not aware that such a process was in motion. --AlexandreJ (talk) 03:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)— 70.51.244.190 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Ism schism (talk) 03:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

I am 70.51.244.190. I had forgotten to log in. --AlexandreJ (talk) 03:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are you suggesting? Ism schism (talk) 03:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a deletion review request on the author's behalf. I hope I was clear as to why you would request the review. Outside of the G4 violation, I am neutral. DarkAudit (talk) 03:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ROTFL! I was just doing the exact same thing :) I've deleted the page as G4, though, and I guess the DRV is now open. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MassiveFM 87.5FM

Pirate radio station less than a month old. Shows no evidence of the significant coverage by reliable, independent sources required to establish notability. Guest9999 (talk) 00:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- not notable. Xdenizen (talk) 00:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pirate radio stations come and go. Only a few achieve any notability and this does not look like one of them. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnotable and needs cleanup Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 00:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if the 'radio station' had any money behind it or a good chance of survival, I'd regard this as notable. But it isn't. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable pirate station which has little information (what is their format? Who works for them?) with a lame strategy to attract listeners; have people too lazy to set their Walkman and car radio presets tune in. Nate • (chatter) 02:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I didn't think there was such a thing as pirate radio anymore. 23skidoo (talk) 02:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are several at any one time in London. It is mostly kids with low power FM transmitters playing urban dance music. They get shut down and new ones open up all the time. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per failing notability ..--Comet styles 10:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons above; pirate radio notability. Somebody should just snowball it at this point. --Auto ^{(talk / contribs)} 11:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to be non-notable. iMat thew 20 08 11:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are no references for this article and unless references are added that indicate otherwise it appears to not meet the notability requirements. Alex 14:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 00:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aljin Abella

Delete - per nom. iMat thew 20 08 11:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if references cannot be found. Nothing 444 13:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article doesn't have any references. Dwilso 15:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge? RS coverage is limited to her one role, can she be covered in the show's article? TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The actor is a boy, not a girl. Mythdon (talk) 17:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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