Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 March 5

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< March 4 March 6 >

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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#G10, attack page. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Hockley

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

Although Hockley is a furrier and notability is therefore extremely tenuous as a result, the rest of the page is bollocks. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 00:43, 5 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 Spartaz Humbug! 13:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skat Bros. Don't Be Cruel

edit
AfDs for this article:
Skat Bros. Don't Be Cruel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Apparently non-notable single. In its current state and according to an unfruitful Google search for sources, this article fails WP:MUSIC скоморохъ 23:59, 5 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. Fram (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Associated Students of Arizona State University

edit
Associated Students of Arizona State University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is used as a webhost for this organization, replete with list of candidates for the student government. No sources for notability are in the article. Prod tag removed. Paddy Simcox (talk) 23:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I really doubt that "all students unions have inherent notability." 1) They are always local in scope, since they are connected to a particular campus. 2) They rarely (if ever) have an reliable third party coverage. 3) Once you delete all of the unverified, unencyclopedic, original researched material, all that remains is a stub. So, it just makes sense to merge the students unions into their main article. 4)WP:UNI's own standards call for students unions to be merged into the main article.
"Student life - Here is also a good place to mention ...students' union activities" (from Wikipedia:UNI#Structure) --RedShiftPA (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • People are seriously going to make a WikiProject for student unions? And they want to be ceded "inherent notability" so that we can have thousands of pages with lists of ambitious polisci majors? The topic of student unions itself could barely support more than two articles. They have had very limited historical impact. Search for books on them; hardly anything. Search in regular newspapers, and all you get is the occasional scandal. Paddy Simcox (talk) 17:36, 8 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 except signature updates.

The result was delete. Original research is not allowed in Wikipedia. Nandesuka (talk) 11:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erics device

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

Written by a user called 'Eric des Courtis', and seems to be an advertisement for some sort of code. MixSup? 23:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not so much an advertisement as a chunk of function header. Would be appropriate for a programming website, but not for an encyclopedia. Bagheera (talk) 23:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, this is a new method for effectively reducing the size of scanners using the C language. How does this article differ from Duff's device for example?

I agree that function headers can be removed if necessary.

How do I meet the requirements for the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric.des.courtis (talk • contribs) 23:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not surprised you disagree. You wrote it, right? However the question isn't about other articles, it's about this one and the article about it. In this case, there is a description of a C function you developed but no indication of the significance beyond your claim that it's special in some way. If this were developed and was seeing wide use, and you could document references to it in other programming manuals or other sources to establish its notability, it would be fine. As it stands, there's nothing to establish notability and function references aren't in of themselves appropriate for Wikipedia. As I said above - it would be great on a programming site. Cheers. Bagheera (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What would qualify as a credible source?
Understood, I will post the article once it has been published by credible sources. Will the work I have done be lost? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric.des.courtis (talk • contribs) 00:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as you are concerned, it will be lost. So copy the wikitext to your own machine! If you repost, we will not want the C code. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All original research and the code doesn't seem like anything particularly special so the claims that it was discovered recently are a little far fetched and unsourced. --neonwhite user page talk 01:07, 6 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 except signature updates.

The result was delete Nandesuka (talk) 11:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor K

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

Non-notable cocktail, I don't know of a speedy deletion criterion for such things. Corvus cornixtalk 23:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for speedy deletion for being short/without context Jammy Simpson | Talk | 23:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
removed tag for speedy - has context. Short is not criteria for speedy deletion.Toddst1 (talk) 23:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unable to find any references to establish notability. Toddst1 (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See reference Harwood, Jeremy (1999). Cocktails HarperCollins Publishers, Glasgow, England.74.160.73.114 (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The scredriver was not very notable either at one point in time. What makes you think that this drink will not be notable. Have you ever tasted one? Jim Kay 74.160.73.114 (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JimKay3495 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Will be notable" is not the same thing as "is notable". Please read WP:N and WP:RS. Corvus cornixtalk 00:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And more information at WP:NFT. --Snigbrook (talk) 00:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See the reference Harwood, Jeremy (1999). Cocktails HarperCollins Publishers, Glasgow, England.74.160.73.114 (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is simply the first entry for an item. It is built upon from there. Others will find the reference and add more details about the history and origin. 74.160.73.114 (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the responsibility of "others" to prove notability, it's the responsibility of the original editor. This discussion will last five days. If valid reliable sources are provided by then, then great. Corvus cornixtalk 05:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See the reference Harwood, Jeremy (1999). Cocktails HarperCollins Publishers, Glasgow, England.JimKay3495 (talk) 11:22, 6 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 merge to Moon Knight. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marlene Alraune

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

Minor character in comics books, no reliable sources in article. Blast Ulna (talk) 23:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge- as per the Emperor :) StarSpangledKiwi (talk) 20:39, 7 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 union is notable, if nothing else within context of its parent article. If there are questions of whether the information should more appropriately appear in a parent article, these can be raised separately per Help:Merge. There is not sufficient consensus within this debate to warrant closure as merge. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Loughborough Students' Union

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

For a simple reason, this article serves a purpose to promote the student union and nothing else. Also, god knows if individual student unions are notable in its own right, hence not notable at all, therefore fails WP:N, this is why this is nominated. I wish people don't come here and write as if they are writing a holiday brochure. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 23:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Merge Student unions are common, and this one is not notable. Paddy Simcox (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete SUs are not inheritantly notable, and this article fails to assert notability. TalkIslander 00:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Have a look at Category:English students' unions, these unions are notable in British Universities. And to blatantly copy Spanmandoo's rationale from the prior AfD, this particular Union is notable because:
    • It is the only students union to represent three organisations, the university, local colledge, and Royal National Institute for the Blind.
    • it has the largest charitable fundraising total of any union in the country. [1]
    • its radio station is responsible for helping launch and entire genre of music back in the 80's.[2]
    • They have won the british university sporting association cup for 29 years running,leaving all other unions in thier wake.[3]
    • They are the most ethical and environmentally freindly organisation of its type, having won many national awards in this feild. including the green gown award [4], the best bar none award [5] and the sound impact award[6].
    • They Have achieved the higest score in student satisfaction in the national student survey last year proving the outstanding level of support for its community. [7]
    • having the oldest student cinema in the country with several hundred capacity[8] (an acheivemnt in the UK).
    • being one of the biggest performance venues in leicstershire.
    • It is also the only[citation needed] student union in the UK that owns it's own student union building rather than leasing space from the university. --Stephen 00:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep major functional division of universities.DGG (talk) 03:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Long established Union, perhaps notable for being the only tertiary Union in UK. Plus its Athletic Union are first rate. BpEps - t@lk 03:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • LuffDucKeep. I usually vote to delete SOCs, but at a major university the union itself is always notable enough for inclusion. AndyJones (talk) 08:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • PS I'd also support a merge to the University article. There's an awful lot of unsourced guff in this one. AndyJones (talk) 08:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I belive it was split off form the main article as it was too large, but we live in a cyclical world --Stephen 08:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, I see. Although I've gotta say, if you merged the adequately sourced content you'd just have to find room for one short sentence: "Six others were also injured during what was described as a scuffle that broke out after CS gas was sprayed following the event.[2]" This AfD is better-sourced! AndyJones (talk)
  • Keep per DGG. GreenJoe 14:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any relevant content to the university's page, student unions are not inherently notable and while this one appears to have some hint of notability, it's still not independent. See also WP:CORP's Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 18:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bad Prose is not a reason for deletion WP:ATD and I find phrases like "...appalling quality of this article is simply calling for a deletion." to be objectionable and completely against Wikipedia policy. If you are trying to inflame other editors that is a great way of going about it. -- BpEps - t@lk 06:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that nominated article, not the users hwich is begging for a deletion - it would require too much effort to rewrite the article to make it worthy of this site. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I would tend to think any SU that was able to book the Rolling Stones puts it into a Unique group, and thus notable. The argument that a University serves a purly local group is false and compleatly ignores the notable topic of Student exchange programs in most (if not all) Universities. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 10:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • your impling that Exchange students are not allowed to join the student union, which we all know is not true. People travel a long way to attend perticular Uni's, and then travel a long way after finishing studies. The Influence of the groups they joined there is not "local" for that reason. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 03:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Knock off, signing Rolling Stone when they were just a new band, is that a massive achievment, this is like saying I signed Arctic Monkeys to perform at my uni in 2006 and this is this biggest achievment the SU could do, why would signing a band when they new a big deal, I'm sure every new bands will all want to perform for food, why, because I used to be in one myself —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay Pegg (talk • contribs) 15:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ongoing discussion on notability of student unions/student governments on TF:SA and WP:UNI. This article should not be deleted (along with all the other student union articles on AfD at the moment until clear guidelines on student unions may be reached. WP:NOT#Wikipedia does not have a deadline. Also note possible proposal of WikiProject Students' Unions, which is in the WPCouncil at the moment. The supporters of the project believes that all students unions have inherit notability regardless of sufficient coverage using standard WP:ORG. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 11:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - sincere but pretty blatantly ill-judged nomination that suggests the nominator's other nominations should be removed as wastes of AFD time - David Gerard (talk) 14:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • On what grounds? These articles have no sources for notability that anybody can find. This is certainly not a snowball case; far from it. It looks more like a case of canvassing and forum shopping on both sides. Paddy Simcox (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Student unions are not mere petty student societies, but an umbrella organisation for all formal student social activities. WP is stuffed full of student American football teams, their coaches etc. , all of which are much less notable. This comment apllies also to any similar nominations below. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. UK university unions are important places. This is just the sort of article that many readers will look for and be disappointed if they do not find it. It needs some work, but that is not a reason to delete. --Bduke (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • To expand my comments, British Student Unions are bound to be notable just by the size of their membership, the range of the clubs and societies they sponsor and the total size of their budget. They just need more references to be found. --Bduke (talk) 07:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Commentand WP:USEFUL and WP:LOSE aren't valid grounds for keep.
        • Both of these come from an essay that states at the top "It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it". We are writing for readers you know. It is time notability was more related to what readers expect to find. Also we should not rush to delete stuff that is inadequate, but improve it. --Bduke (talk) 04:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I realise that, but the core issue is that all of these fail WP:ORG. Your grounds for keep aren't based in any policy. These are locally notable orgs, none with encyclopedic notability that's the issue here. There have to be guidelines because there doesn't need to be an article for everything. There are some things that don't belong in an enyclopedia and in my opinion, this is one of them TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 04:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Please, point out to me where the 'Local' clause is hiding in WP:N. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 08:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • WP:ORG: Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found. Same place it has been every time we have this discussion :) I realise it's a guideline and one you're not particularly fond of but at the top of that page it also says This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. I don't particularly care about these student union AfDs and am not as vested as some who are passionate on either side, but I think the clause needs to be acknowledged even though a couple have just closed as no consensus and I doubt this will have one either. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 11:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Why do you think this Student Union is local in scope. Students at universities in the UK come from all over the UK. They are not local institutions. Loughborough has a particular country wide feature, that does affect the Student Union. It is really hot on sport, so the best sports people in at least some sports go to Loughborough from all over the country and, guess what, their sport is supported by the Student Union. --Bduke (talk) 12:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Student unions are local in scope because it covers a localized amount of students while attending the university. The students' origins and where they go after they graduate do not factor into the SU at all because the main scope is the serve its current students. Sports has nothing to do with the scope. Don't try to tie in a student union with the university's athletics program. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 13:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Student union interact with each other, so they have a national importance. People from other universities will want to read this article. You are misunderstanding a UK organisation which is not like your US organisations. Student Unions in most cases are responsible for all student sport. They are sub societies of the union, like all student socities. From the article it seems that this is the case here. Not surprising. It is normal. A UK student union no more has local scope than the university itself has. --Bduke (talk) 22:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Well, student unions in the US also put together university sporting events. However, the sports players represent the university, therefore should be described in the "Athletics" section with mention of student union's involvement. That's all there is to it. If the players are not wearing Loughborough Students' Union uniforms (which they're clearly not), then athletics has nothing to do with this organization being notable. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 23:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I'm sorry, but you do not know what you are talking about and the US experience is not relevant. Players at Loughborough will be wearing the colours of their Club, Rugby, Cricket etc and that Club is part of the Student Union, just like the Debating Society and hundreds of other clubs. All these clubs add to the notability of the Union. If articles on the Clubs were started they would probably be merged into the Union article, not the University article. The University has nothing to do with student sport. It is the responsibility of the Union. --Bduke (talk) 23:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(untab)OK, here's my opinion (for the record, I'm a second year student at a UK university, and am fairly involved in our Union, so I'm most definitely not talking from a US point of view ;) ). Though the sporting clubs are a part of the union, when they play other clubs, they play for the University of XYZ, not the University of XYZ's Student Union. They team names are that of the University, not union, and if they win, then the University of XYZ has won, not the UXSU. This, I am farily sure, is standard across the UK, at least in most unis. Not in Loughborough, by the sounds of things. With this logic in mind, the 'local-ness' of a sports club does not increase/decrease that of the union. TalkIslander 00:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

edit
  1. ^ LBoroSU | Home Page
  2. ^ https://www.lcr1350.co.uk
  3. ^ BUSA Action - BUSA
  4. ^ http://www.heepi.org.uk/green%20gown%202006-7/times%20higher%20ad.pdf
  5. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_Bar_None
  6. ^ Students’ Unions receive Sound Impact Awards for being green | New Consumer
  7. ^ The National Student Survey
  8. ^ Flix: Loughborough Students Cinema :: Information
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool Students' Union

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

For a simple reason, this article serves a purpose to promote the student union and nothing else. Also, god knows if individual student unions are notable in its own right, hence not notable at all, therefore fails WP:N, this is why this is nominated. Also I wish people don't come here and write as if they are writing a holiday brochure. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, are you attempting to say that every bar thart won this award should get their own article, my reply is no, not at all as it will clutter this article. Also this student exchange thing only applies to universities, not SUs. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 15:46, 7 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, ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 22:51, 11 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 union is notable. If there are questions of whether the information should more appropriately appear in a parent article, these can be raised separately per Help:Merge. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MMUnion

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

For a simple reason, this article serves a purpose to promote the student union and nothing else. Also, god knows if individual student unions are notable in its own right, hence not notable at all, therefore fails WP:N, this is why this is nominated. Well, there is nothing notable other than anything trivial. Also I wish people don't come here and write as if they are writing a holiday brochure. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 23:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, Almost all colleges have a student union. Unless it has some kind of special history or architecture or something, it is not notable. Paddy Simcox (talk) 23:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete UK SUs are not inheritantly notable, and this article fails to assert notability. TalkIslander 00:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep major functional division of universities. almost qall colleges have one, and the ones at the more important colleges and universities are separately notable. DGG (talk) 03:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG. GreenJoe 14:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any relevant content to the university's page, student unions are not inherently notable and it's the rare one (not this one) that has any external notability. See also WP:CORP's Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 18:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this SU is notable as for 20 years, until the merger of UMIST and Victoria University in Manchester it was the largest non-collegiate University in the country and hence the largest non-collegiate SU in the country. It was also notable as the most left wing SU in the country during the 1980's, (in)famous for its support of the miners during the miners strike. I agree that the content has at times resembled promo leaflet but that has been removed, and yes it can be improved, but Student Unions are, whether they recognise it or not, an integral part of the life of the 50% of 18-21 year olds who go to higher education - from the organisastion of sport and societies, representations and campaigns, democracy and politcal debate, to the advancement of entertainment and a wide and varied social life —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mithrandir1967 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, Yes, student union are notable...but only to those who study at the university and never to those who study outside these faculties because...the students get told about them on their freshman week, thats why. My pure reason to nominate this for deletion is, this article is nothing but pure spam, a total misuse of this site of you all tell me, plus there is nothing that is salvageable in this site for it to stay. In all student unions are only notable to those who studied at the faculty, not to mention that every educational faculties have one. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 23:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Freshman? Studied at the faculty? Do you know anything about UK students' unions? This sounds like a American attack to me! Andy (talk) 23:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Come on, let's keep it civil... It seems fairly clear that Knock-off-Nigel speaks from an American viewpoint. Nothing wrong with that, and certainly doesn't warrent any 'attack' comments, but regardles, hear me out (me being a second year Physics student at a UK university, me being fairly heavily involved in my Union, me being well aware of what UK SUs are). Student Unions are notable as a whole. Individual SUs are not. They are all pretty much carbon copies of one another - sure, one union will have slightly different policies than another, but on the whole they'll be the same. As I've said many a time, there are exceptions - a few UK SUs are notable, and they have the sources to back them up. Most, however, do not. I'm interested: you are completely insistant that SUs are notable. Why is this particular SU notable? How does it meet the WP:N guidelines? I await your response. TalkIslander 23:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to Andymmu OK, I mean freshers, I used to study in a university in the UK, I use the word to incorporate colleges and universities together. Personally, I agree with the islander's comment that a few of them are notable. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Islander That'll teach my for not checking Wikipedia for a few days! In answer to your question, I simply believe that an organization with over 33,000 members is notable. As far as WP:N is concerned, I'm not going to pretend that this article clearly passes but the union's history in its support for the minors' strike looks to give it notability with WP:N#TEMP. Unfortunately, I know little about the details of this. Perhaps Mithrandir1967 could fill in any info he's got. Andy (talk) 01:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mithrandir1967. Plus this article had already reached no consensus to delete in December. I don't think it's been long enough to nominate it again. Is this a campaign by numbers? Andy (talk) 23:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My reason is this appalling quality of this article which serves to spam its service, therefore it deserves to be deleted, plus I only came across this recently and disagree on its original verdict. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quality alone is not grounds for deletion please consult WP:ATD. -- BpEps - t@lk 13:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that there is no other useful third party sources there other than some trivial fact about some reality TV show pop puppet and some scandals and other trivial things. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What rich history. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Knock-Off Nigel, you have to remember that many of the people commenting here are not familiar with all the policies and guidelines, and the idea is to gently educate them. Given that he called it "formerly MPSU", perhaps he could actually lead us to some sources that would confer notability on this organization. Paddy Simcox (talk) 16:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ok I can't find much about (MPSU) it was before the internet. There is a new "article hit counter" - actually the figures aren't glowing avg. 210 hits for MMU WP hit counter MMU Dec07, I'm not sure why the current cull on Students' Unions, they are the breeding ground for the next generation of politicians (lol don't quote WP:CRYSTAL) and have much higher membership figures than mainstream political orgaisations. However I can't offer very much more sourcing. -- BpEps - t@lk 17:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don't really think it is that notable on its own, considering every university have its own SU. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 11:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's up with replying to every argument? Let others make their arguments and the closing admin will make their decision based on their strength. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep though it may need some work. Conflicts of interest are not necessarily grounds for deletion. There are third party references and sources cited, which is the important thing, and though it needs some more, these shouldn't be too hard to find. Snthdiueoa (talk) 13:09, 13 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. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diamanda Nero

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

No reliable sources attest to the notability of this comic book character. Blast Ulna (talk) 23:18, 5 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 merge with no prejudice to separation and restoration as a separate article given sufficient sourced content. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Golik

edit
Matt Golik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page except signature updates.

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Five finger death punch (card game)

edit
Five finger death punch (card game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No sourced assertion of notability, just an uncited "stir amongst the media". From the talk of merchandise and world champions with funny names, this seems pretty obviously WP:MADEUP. McGeddon (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MADEUP means "made up in college one day" rather than "fictional". Until they hit the mainstream and get some coverage from newspapers, magazines or major blogs, things which are made up in college one day don't merit Wikipedia articles. --McGeddon (talk) 10:07, 8 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 The JPStalk to me 22:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homie Joe

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

Another webcomic article which does not establish notability. MixSup? 22:50, 5 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 23:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Local Asynchronous Satellite Hookup

edit
Local Asynchronous Satellite Hookup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable game. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nowhere near notable. This review site[1] is about 7 or 8 in a Google search for lash+game+satellite... and it's attracted 20 votes in 8 years. — FIRE!in a crowded theatre... 02:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - non-notable game, per previous prod. No proof of notability. Fail WP:RS. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:22, 6 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 except signature updates.

The result was delete, and it sounds like the relevant info has already been merged. Nandesuka (talk) 11:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World of Warcraft Launcher

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

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just a program that launches World of Warcraft, and as notability is not inherited, there needs to be a real assertion of notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:37, 5 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 except signature updates.

The result was delete. Nandesuka (talk) 02:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blizzard Downloader

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

This article asserts no notability through multiple reliable sources, and is just a downloading program for Blizzard games. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:36, 5 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 WP:SNOW delete. --Salix alba (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Dave Jones Interval Averages (DJIA)

edit
The Dave Jones Interval Averages (DJIA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Analysis of lottery numbers. Unencyclopedic. Non-notable. Original research. Etc. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<<<Analysis of lottery numbers.>>>
It's also a rethinking about the nature of time if you give me a chance.

<<<Unencyclopedic.>>>
 Not true many businesses state what they do here on Wikipedia.

<<<Non-notable.>>>
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Stifle/Don't_say_non-notable
The subject matter has a very wide interest, and all charts and tables can be independently confirmed.

<<<Original research. Etc>>>
 What's so original about timelines or chronologies?
Lottery enthusiast and players always want to know how long ago a number was drawn so I simply set up charts to measure that in the timelines.
I invite anyone to show me a complex preconcived idea less fundamental than ordering events in time, and the space between events.
IT'S SIMPLY A VERY CLOSE LOOK USING SPACE AND TIME...
OR THE SPACE OF TIME!

Dave Jones (talk) 23:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.219.167.46 (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

  • DELETE!' ORIGINAL RESEARCH! Sheesh! 23:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

We use frequency analysis, timelines, and charts please SAY CONCEPTUALLY WHAT IS NEW!!!!Dave Jones (talk) 23:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm sure that there's some poor fool out there who would pay for a service that looks for trends in what numbers have been picked so that they can get an "edge" on what numbers to pick tomorrow. However, until the ping-pong balls can make intelligent decisions, the odds will remain the same every day. Good luck on tonight's Powerball... Go with 10, 15, 16, 23 and 31, and take "5" for the powerball, so you can split the $173 million with me. Mandsford (talk) 00:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Where to start? Unencyclopaedic. Original Research. Conflict of Interest. Self promotional. Inappropriate tone. Unreferenced. Created by single purpose self promotional account. Non-notable. I'm sure there's more. Canterbury Tail talk 00:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable self-promotional original research. --DAJF (talk) 14:55, 6 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) 22:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Button

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

Recreation after deletion via PROD. Has not made an appearance in a fully professional league, so fails WP:ATHLETE. robwingfield «T•C» 22:01, 5 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 --Salix alba (talk) 20:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Habanero Lizard

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

It's a hoax. These species are native to North America, not Afghanistan, and no other sites refer to them as "habanero lizards". — FIRE!in a crowded theatre... 21:55, 5 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, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow of the Banhammer

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

Non-notable movie that has no reliable sources to verify any notability. Contested prod, bringing to AfD for discussion. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can we Violate our own copyright?--72.130.160.178 (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because I don't believe Youtube releases their content on GFDL, and judging by your response, it seems like we might have a conflict of interests here... The Dominator (talk) 06:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So now what you're implying is that in order advance their own person interests, the MNG placed an article on a site that is blocked from most business and educational network systems and not work-citable on any form of official research? I believe that if promotion was the goal, we'd have just created a website. The Article is here so that Wikipedia has it first. When users want to search the film and the website is not yet up, they'll be able to come to Wiki and find out a small bit about it. That will be problematic if the articles been deleted. And it will certainly be problematic if it ever needs to be added again, yet the server shows it as having been deleted. Let us avoid redundancy and keep the article present, that it may now discredit the name of Wikipedia in it's absense.

Nope, no reliable secondary sources exist, if the film becomes notable and reliable secondary sources come to light, there will be no problem with recreating although I highly doubt that it will ever be significant. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a substitute for creating a website. The Dominator (talk) 07:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you haven't FOUND any reliable secondary sources. But your oversightful form of diction seems to work just as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.160.178 (talk) 07:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you have grasped Wikipedia's notability policy. Have major newspapers written articles about your movie? Have there been books written about the filmmakers that include this film? Has this film been a theatrical release? I seriously doubt that you could answer "yes" to any of those questions, therefore it isn't anywhere near staying on Wikipedia. I suggest reading WP:MOVIE which creates the exact criteria for film notability. The Dominator (talk) 15:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying it that all the producers need to do is get the New York Times to write about their film, release it in the AMC theater, and get respective biographers to dedicate books to them? Sounds simple enough. Although, provided that all of this is available for any film article that exists on Wikipedia, precisely what is Wikipedia doing that all the other sources are not. Notability is more than just the first link you can find on google. --72.130.160.178 (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enough! Read WP:MOVIE, it clearly says that for a movie to be notable, at least two nationally known critics have had to review it. The Dominator (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are a nation apart. What critic is really nationally known?--72.130.160.178 (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

one that has worked for as a main critic for a major newspaper; I see that you won't ever read WP:MOVIE so here is the general guidelines:

"As with all subjects, a film should satisfy the general notability guideline.

The general guideline for notability shared by most of the subject-specific notability guidelines and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, is that:

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

This guideline includes published works such as books, television documentaries, full-length featured newspaper articles from large circulation newspapers, full-length magazine reviews and criticism excluding the following:

* Media reprints of press releases, trailers, and advertising for the film. * Trivial coverage, such as newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews," plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as "Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide," "Time Out Film Guide," or the Internet Movie Database

The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with attribution in reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist:

1. The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. 2. The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following: * Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release. * The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release. * The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release. * The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema. 3. The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking. 4. The film was selected for preservation in a national archive. 5. The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program."

The point is, that a topic has no chance of staying unless it has been covered by reliable secondary sources, therefore as you said, YES, a news article does have to be written about your film before it's notable. I also suggest you read: WP:CoI. The Dominator (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we pulled a local news article about it, I doubt any of you would refrain from dying to delete it. If fact, we'd try to post the news article on Wiki, and it would probably be speedy deleted before any of you ever had the chance to see it. Everyone seems to be so trigger happy with the deletion gun.--72.130.160.178 (talk) 06:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And yet you STILL haven't answered the question, where are your sources? Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, where are your sources? If you pull a local news article about it, it won't be deleted if you add it into the article per WP:CITE, also read WP:V a local news article alone does not make something notable. Still, I doubt you'll even find a local news article. The Dominator (talk) 16:06, 9 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. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The definition of country mile already exists on Wiktionary. Speculation on the etymology is unsourced, but I will gladly make this content available to anyone who would like to transwiki it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Country mile

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

Delete: WP is not a dictionary. There's nothing particularly notable about the term "country mile", and there's nothing particularly notable about the concept the word refers to. The article currently waffles on about unverifiable possible original research about the term's origin and is not becoming of an encyclopedia. —Felix the Cassowary 21:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry about that...! I searched Collins and didn't find anything, and since I've never heard the term, decided it was something made up. Maybe it's more common in the US than on this side of the pond? Anyway, it's still just a dictionary definition, so my delete vote stands. — FIRE!in a crowded theatre... 10:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this article is about the etymology of the phrase, the information it contains should be in wiktionary. Waqqasd (talk) 13:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with Waqqasd. Risker (talk) 00:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Note that the confirmable aspects of this article (i.e. the definition of it being a long way) is already in Wiktionary. Before you copy the etymologies or the claim that it's "greater than a mile", you should actually check to make sure the definitions are anything more than an editor bullshitting along to make the article longer than half a sentence. As it stands I doubt anything in the Wikipedia article not in the Wiktionary article is worth any more than the photons it's displayed with. —Felix the Cassowary 03:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Does no harm, and is one of the obscure, but interesting pages that ALoan was famous for. It will come in useful one day. Giano (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"waffles on about unverifiable possible original research"? "not becoming"? "bullshitting"? Sp this is what passes for civilised debate on Wikipedia, hmm?
Some entirely unoriginal research at Google provides evidence for most of this:
"A country mile is an exaggeration of [a statute mile]. Rural roads in Britain twist and turn through the countryside...the real distance travelled on a winding road will be considerably greater than "as the crow flies"..."
"Country mile has come to mean a greater distance than a regular mile, because distances seem greater when one is out in the open spaces of the country..."
plus this website:
"I assume walking a mile on country terrain takes longer than in urban terrain...."
"I can imagine another possible origin: the supposed habit of country people of giving optimistically imprecise directions. "
Whether this is notable or not, or should be "transwiki"ed, is another matter. Is there anything notable about the New York minute, or Internet time? -- Testing times (talk) 23:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I said "you should check to make sure" it's anything more than what it looks like to me. It is not my fault if someone writes an unnecessary article that looks bad. I will tell you why it looks bad and why it's unnecessary, and I won't apologise for it. I'm not criticising whoever wrote it (I don't even know who did!).
In any case, I advise you to continue looking; the sources you provide do not look particularly good. Notice how the first source you provide leads with the expression "to miss by a country mile"—certainly in my experience, no-one misses anything by more than a mile when this expression is used; instead, they might've thrown something into a bin in the corner of a room, and it landed in the middle of the wall, or they might not even have come close to getting a behind in football, let alone a goal. The definitions included in respectable dictionaries—which do not provide etymologies—are consistently that it is simply a long distance, without anything more, clearly indicating that "long" is to be interpreted by context.
But before you do, notice that sources for definitions of words are in fact not books defining them, but examples of their use. You would need to show me that either no other usages of the word existed, or that any other uses were widely regarded as mistakes. Look at any respectable dictionary; they provide examples of words, not references to popular texts.
—Felix the Cassowary 06:10, 13 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, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Bogosian

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

Non-notable junior player who has not yet played professionally so thus fails WP:N. Can be readded when/if he ever plays professionally or does something like win a major award that otherwise indicates notability. Djsasso (talk) 21:13, 5 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, per comments here and the umpteen number of previous deletions of articles describing the exact same thing. See 6DOW. Besides, this was originally listed as a "textbook example" of NFT, for crying out loud). Please use the User: and Wikipedia: namespace for this kind of stuff unless you have actual sources. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Races

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

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day, no reliable sources, etc. Xyzzyplugh (talk) 21:11, 5 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. ZimZalaBim talk 02:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clean Films

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

Company no longer exists (not even sure how much it really did exist beyond a local Utah community in the first place). Links provided are not to reliable sources from which to establish any notability. ZimZalaBim talk 21:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In light of sources for the lawsuit, I'm withdrawing the AfD nomination. --ZimZalaBim talk 02:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 00:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ducana

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

It's mostly recipe violating WP:HOWTO, but there's also no evidence of notability for this dish. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 16:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the extensive inclusion in travel books and articles identifying the dish and its assocaition with local Antiguan cuisine establishes notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:27, 7 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Ebony Cactus

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

Only [RS mention] is in one member's byline, nothing about the org itself. Ghits are primarily forum posts, directory links, podcast downloads and driveby mentions of those involved. No evidence of notability. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 18:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:54, 5 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 except signature updates.

The result was no consensus, keep. Nandesuka (talk) 11:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Echo Ranch Bible Camp

edit
Echo Ranch Bible Camp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Small amount of local coverage but no evidence of notability per WP:CORP and local organizations. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 17:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:51, 5 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 in accordance with WP:CSD#G4. Acalamari 00:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Pussycat Dolls Second Studio Album.

edit
The Pussycat Dolls Second Studio Album. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:CRYSTAL; a new album being announced does not mean we have to have a page on it. It probably will one day exist, but with almost no information available there is nothing to create a Wikipedia page on it with. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 20:49, 5 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, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aptina

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

The article in the current state is so badly written that it is unsalvageable. It is written entirely as an advertisement, and no amount of tinkering will change that. My recommendation is: Delete current version, but without prejudice against recreation as a real encyclopedic article, by an uninvolved editor. To summarize: there is nothing in the current version that is worth keeping; the subject itself may (or may not) be notable, and a good article may (possibly) be written about it; but this just isn't it, this is a blatant, horrible piece of advertising. If there should be an article on this topic, it must be re-written from scratch. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hopeless spam for probably-non-notable (just announced today!) by badly-COI editor. Creator has admitted to having a relationship to the company and has threatened to real-world investigate another WP user who revealed the existance of this product line before it was supposed to be public, so his "I saw a press release" genesis for the article is how shall I say, a load of crap. DMacks (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really, "load of crap? Sorry. I thought it was honest. Since I was looking at the press release. I did not write the release. SoTureForYou (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further, what qualifies as notable? The division has about 600 employees and is the second largest maker of CMOS image sensors in the world. Last, year it was the largest, but fell to number two when its largest customer stumbled. And I mentioned the fact that the company stumbled in the article. I thought I was providing a neutral point of view by mentioning that it had fallen to the 2nd position. If it was spam, as you conjecture, why would I have included that fact?SoTureForYou (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is true I do have a relationship with the company. But 90-percent of the folks that post on wikipedia have a relationship to their topic. Aptina was slandered last week. DMacks knows that as DMacks deleted the slander. We were trying to provide a good baseline about this company so that it could get fair treatment. As much as possible, I have tried to link to outside articles. I have been using Intel and other company listings as a sort of model. SoTureForYou (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)SoTureForYou (talk) 20:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tony, I understand your suggestion to add this content to the Micron article, but Aptina was seperated for sale. It is likely to be a stand alone company this year. It is also very important in the industry. If you own a camera phone, there is a 33-percent chance it has an Aptina CMOS image sensor on board.
  • Delete per WP:SPAM. Someone needs to do something about all those images with big ol' Aptina logos and no licensing information, as well. (I'm not familiar enough with image deletion to know what to do.) Deor (talk) 23:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What would be an approiate size for the images? The company makes image sensors. I noticed that Nikon has several product images in their article. Why is showing a company's product, as in the Nikon case wrong?SoTureForYou (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Nikon article has pictures of Nikon products. This one, on the other hand, has galleries of images made with the product, and many of them bear a logo that could be construed as advertising. The main problem,, however, is that the image uploads lack any licensing information—for them to be on Wikipedia, whoever holds the copyright has to release them under a free license, essentially allowing anyone to reuse them (with acknowledgment) in any way they see fit. Deor (talk) 00:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sorry that you think I am a poor writer. I am trying now to improve it. It meets all of the neutral writting standards I have been able to find. So I am not sure what else you suggest. Also regarding the images, I do not understand why these are a problem. I have checked out several company articles all of which include product images. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SoTureForYou (talk • contribs) 19:54, 6 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, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Prall

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

Contested speedy. Non-notable musician. No sources aside from generic link to his label (which is not a major label or recognized indie). Cannot verify claims about musicians he's worked with or use of his music in various ad campaigns. Fails WP:MUSIC. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no, I don't get your drift. Axl (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's spell it out. SPA + M = SPAM. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPAM. Klar? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 20:07, 6 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christian church directory

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

Directory, and duplicates existing list article Tb (talk) 20:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#DIR, also duplicates List of Christian denominations Tb (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

See also WP:Templates for deletion#Template:Christian_Church_Directory and WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_February_29#Category:Find_a_Christian_church. Tb (talk) 20:37, 5 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.

BeoCom

edit

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closing) - Milk's Favorite Cookie 20:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete fails WP:N Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:26, 5 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 reliable sources necessary for a biography has not been overcome. Tikiwont (talk) 09:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tove Jensen

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

Article was prodded twice ignoring prior AFD. This new AFD is one year later. Same issue still there. No reliable sources to verify notability under WP:BIO. There is not even a claim of importance or significance of the subject either. Vinh1313 (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Vinh1313 (talk) 20:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V. Tove has been a widely known porn legend for 30 years, but I have never seen anything about her from a credible source. Aside from a small, but memorable body of work, there are few facts and stories conflict. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Thoroughly invisible in GNews Archive, GBooks and GScholar. The only web sources appear to be non-independent, forums, or blogs. Given some claims that she may have been underage, when the only cited thing in the article is her age and the source is IMDB, we're treading on very thin ice. --Dhartung | Talk 06:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep - Searches should probably be made under the working alias Tiny Tove, and not her real name. With that in mind, while I can admit it seems a non-notable topic, Dhartung's source found above may indicate that Wikipedia should perhaps have something about this person, considering the content of that article. I'd have to assume SOMETHING must exist out there about her, and given the ambivalent legal status of her works she seems notable enough for here. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Internet trading of Tove images led to one of the first digital copyright infringement cases. Out of the thousands of Color Climax performers, Tove is one of only a few that CC advertises by name on their website. Tove is also at the center of what appears to be a whistleblower blog as noted above. The DOJ has successfully prosecuted her footage as child pornography, sometime in the '90's, yet allow the continued distribution of the same footage. In essense, it's notable that the companies that own the Tove copyrights, and the DOJ that owns the conviction of her footage, have not produced verifiable information regarding Tove. Even after a U.S. Senator requested an investigation into one of the companies that are distributing the prosecuted footage. In short, Tove is currently at the center of a conspiracy regarding the legality of her productions which could affect millions of individuals, and calls into question the conduct of federal officials. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nazz (talk • contribs) 23:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Can this assertion be verified by independent reliable secondary sources as required under WP:N and WP:V? So far the evidence for notability comes from blogs or primary sources. Vinh1313 (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment As a lawyer you know that the "best evidence" is the primary source. In this case, it's the court documents and related correspondence (albeit redacted), the contents of which are supported by links to secondary sources. To me, they carry the same weight as if they were posted on Wikileaks or a filehosting site. I don't see how a secondary source could verify a court transcript or personal correspondence anymore than Wikileaks can verify annonymous uploaded email correspondence. And good luck getting any of the identified agencies (FBI, U.S. Senate, Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys, Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section of the Criminal Division, U.S. Postal Inspection Service) to confirm any of those documents, one of which retains the signature. Which leads into a point I was making. The lack of verifiability is part of what makes Tove notable. To use Nandesuka's example below, compare the Traci Lords article to Tove's. Both had their commercial productions prosecuted by federal authorities, but only Lords created national hysteria, and a mass destruction of her titles, and continued prosecution of their possesion, distribution etc. Which is the main reason we know so much about Lords. Why would Tove be any different? That said, there's no argument that the article in its current form is lacking, but fixing it presents a dilema. If you don't believe the court documents on the whistleblower blog, then one is free to update the article, with links and fair use photos consistent with the DVD releases of her productions. If the court documents gives one pause as to whether to add a link or photo, that in itself is notable as you are engaging in self-censorship. Something at least one website has done. Nazz (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: Irrelevant. WP:V clearly states: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it" while WP:PSTS states, "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." The difference between Traci Lords and Tiny Tove is that Traci is notable because she's been the subject of extensive coverage by mainstream media. Vinh1313 (talk) 01:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of reliable sources. Tove Jensen clearly is "notable" and would be deserving of an article if reliable sources could be found on her. One of the most interesting things about Tove is that she is one of a very small number of late-1970's era Color Climax "loop" actresses who can be consistently identified by name. Unfortunately, all of the material that exists about her consists of fan/forum quality "urban legend" type material, combined with marketing material from Color Climax. There's simply no reliable independent sources that tell us anything about who she is or her career arc. For comparison, look at the article on Bodil Joensen, also an 'underground' phenom porn star, and note the variety and quality of the sources therein. Given the disparity here, I don't think this article on Tove Jensen is salvagable: a name, a birthday, and a list of movie titles simply isn't enough to have a meaningful encyclopedia article. Nandesuka (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Just more NN porn spam. --RucasHost (talk) 02:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete if Nazz can find any reliable sources to back up what he is saying then keep, otherwise this needs to go. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:03, 13 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 23:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chalik

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

This article was speedy-deleted three times under A7 as non-notable, but the same editor keeps creating the page again. To prevent having to go through this process ad infinitum, let's have a full discussion and then delete. Just asserting that someone took a lot of photographs and that some people kept the prints does not make the photographer notable. Russ (talk) 19:57, 5 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. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pipeline Radio

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

Completed unfinsished nom for Damansky (talk · contribs). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its a shame that Big Brother should be able to delete a radio station and its history, we should therefore delete God! as maybe he is not real and just a rumour? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonttu (talk • contribs) 17:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Thank you for your thoughtful and well-thought-out response, Jonttu. This user has attempted to engage in debate via private e-mail, which I told him is against the policy of Wikipedia regarding AfD discussions. He has refused to abide by this policy, so I posted the text of those messages on his user talk page. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:27, 7 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. faithless (speak) 05:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KIDPOWER

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

There's no indication that this organisation is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. AecisBrievenbus 18:56, 5 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. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatnigs

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

Contested speedy. I deleted this as A7 for lack of an assertion of notability, but the article actually does assert notability by having being a former band of Michael Franti. I'm not 100% convinced of this band's notability, so I have brought this here for discussion. The only reference is a very short All Music article. Coredesat 18:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep The AMG bio seems to be a decent source, and they did have an album on Alternative Tentacles, which seems to be a very notable label (with a neat name, no less). However, I'm not finding much more about them, so I say only weak keep. Alternatively, I guess it could be merged to Michael Franti. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)w[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Could make a redirect to existing section in Franti's article. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Suggest against a redirect to Franti on the grounds that another member of The Beatnigs, Rono Tse, also deserves his own article. One LP and an EP on Alternative tentacles (the EP was a remix by Adrian Sherwood), plus they recorded for the Peel Sessions, I suggest this last item demonstrates notability. The Alternative Tentacles website blurb for the reissue of the LP mentions "As heard on "Democracy Now" 2/9/06,"; I havn't listened to the show to see what this refers too, but note that searching for "Beatnigs" on the DN website turns up six different stories (all with Franti as focus, but I think if they mention the Beatnigs everytime they introduce him, that suggests that the Beatnigs are notable). Beatnigs concert review in the New York Times [7], more New York Times coverage (documenting Beatnigs participation in the New Music Seminar) [8]. I count nine links to this article from WP mainspace. Lastly, thanks to Coredesat for undeleting the article and sending here, as I had requested. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete! Who would even contest, this isnt a speedy? --Camaeron (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Quite a number of people, by the looks of it. Being a former band of Michael Franti means that it can be considered to have passed one of the criteria at WP:MUSIC (as well as asserting the notability required to avoid being a speedy candidate) - an album on Alternative Tentacles is half-way to another of the criteria. A weak keep, or failing that a redirect to Franti's article, seem much more useful outcomes than a speedy deletion. Grutness...wha? 00:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A quick Google Books search shows several references to the Beatnigs. I'd say they meet criteria 1, 5, and 6 of WP:MUSIC. Klausness (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ——Torc. (Talk.) 01:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - Democracy Now! is a minor podcast-level radio program. It wouldn't normally be accepted as a source for anything on Wikipedia. Being on Alternative Tentacles does certainly meet WP:MUSIC as that's a major and important independent label... but where's the proof that this article passes WP:RS and WP:N? There aren't even any sources given, except for a few reviews - certainly not a sufficient asserton of notability to pass WP:N. Probably the best that can be done is a redirect to Franti. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reliable sources provided in the form of two New York Times pieces, one academic journal and assorted books. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - jawdroppingly ignorant nomination demonstrating a severe lack of judgement on the part of the nominator. Suggest writing articles before going anywhere near AFD, and possible removal of any other nominations for wasting AFD time with silliness like this. (Note I do not question sincerity, merely quality of judgement) - David Gerard (talk) 14:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
note that the article was not in anything like its present state when originally speedy deleted, it met the criteria for speedy deletion, and was undeleted by the nominator, and sent here to AfD, at my request. I can find no fault with the nominators actions, and suggest you rethink your comments, consider applying some AGF etc. Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:27, 9 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changeling (Eberron)

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

More maintenance tags than you can poke a stick at. Yet another personal essay on a D&D character class which says nothing much beyond what you'd find at changeling. Guy (Help!) 18:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. March is D&D Spring Cleaning Month; you can help. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Multiple maintenance tags make a bad article do not. References in the process of being added, looking for proof of notability, otherwise perhaps merge into the main eberron page?--Hazel77 (talk) 09:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy deleted by User:Seicer, g1. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Moofe Time (UMT)

edit
Universal Moofe Time (UMT) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hoax, in my opinion. Jackaranga (talk) 18:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or at least not at all notable, I'm not even sure what this is about, sorry if I am misunderstanding something. Jackaranga (talk) 18:36, 5 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 this band released their debut album in 2004, it's unlikely that this supposed album from 1997 is anything more than a hoax. faithless (speak) 05:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Los Lonely Boys (Los Lonely Boys Sofaking album)

edit
Los Lonely Boys (Los Lonely Boys Sofaking album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Album doesn't seem to have been covered in any reliable sources, and a search for such sources turned up nothing of note. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:10, 5 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 23:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Smith (ice hockey)

edit
Jeremy Smith (ice hockey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable junior hockey player who has yet to play professionally so fails to meed WP:N. When and if he plays professionally he can have his article recreated. He has not won any other major individual awards that could have gained him notability through other means. Djsasso (talk) 18:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is ample precidence. -Djsasso (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. His league is not a top-level league, thus he fails WP:N. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The Nashville Predators just signed him today. At the time of this nomination he is a professional under contract, (be it in Nashville or with the Milwaukee Admirals) ccwaters (talk) 21:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As are numerous junior players. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so until he actually plays a game he still doesn't meet the standards. This could still be a couple of years. Junior players often sign pro contracts years before they ever actually play pro. -Djsasso (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment No, signing him means he's going somewhere pro within the Preds's system now. Drafting him gave The Preds exclusive rights to sign him within 3,4(?) years after which would have been draft eligible once again or a free agent depending on age. I don't think he can go to Milwaukee because he's not on their clear day roster. Its the NHL or lower minors (ECHL or CHL). I'm sure we'll find out within a day. ccwaters (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment No actually it doesn't. Players sign pro contracts anytime after they have been drafted. The first year of their contract doesn't kick in until they have played X number of games in the NHL or AHL etc. Drafting him gave them the right to sign him within 2 years otherwise he goes back into the draft. There are numerous players playing in the major juniors right now with pro contracts. All signing him to a contract has done, is made it impossible for him to go back into the draft. -Djsasso (talk) 21:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Here we go found the actual amount. Once the player appears in his tenth NHL game, his contract kicks in. prior to that he remains a junior player. Or a better quote would be A junior-aged player who is not signed to an NHL contract by this time must return to his junior team (the official deadline is usually a day or two before the opening games). That player is essentially gone for the year. He is not eligible to return to the NHL until his junior team's season is over. So since he didn't sign a contract till after the season started he is not elligable to turn pro till his junior team is done for the year. -Djsasso (talk) 21:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ok...you're right: Claude Giroux (ice hockey) is a good example... [9] played in the AHL post QMJHL last season, signed to an entry level over the summer, played for his junior team all season, loaned to the Flyers on an emergency basis, back playing in juniors... ccwaters (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yeah I was trying to think of a recent good example and he fits the bill. You will often see players play for the pro farm team during the playoffs if they are a really good junior player and their junior team is already knocked out of the playoffs. And once this guy does something like that then by all means give him a page. Just right now he hasn't played a game yet. -Djsasso (talk) 22:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • I think the timeframe to sign is longer and I think its different for NCAA prospects. Once you sign a contract you're done (Kyle Okposo). A 2 year timeframe would ensure that most draftees would leave college early: something the NCAA would greatly frown upon. Whatever, its irrelevant to this AFD. ccwaters (talk) 22:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the top two comments! --Camaeron (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable per WP:NOTE. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment He did split the Dave Pinkney Trophy with Michal Neuvirth last year. Smith played 34 games to Neuvirth's 41, so it was close to 50/50. It is a statistical award that goes to the team with the best GAA. Is Dave Pinkney Trophy notable enough? Patken4 (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think it is, but that's just my opinion. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 23:43, 5 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weafer

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

This article is about a surname with no examples of notable people with that surname. —BradV 18:00, 5 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 article does not verify notability. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PDF Sign&Seal

edit
PDF Sign&Seal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not establish WP:Notability via independent reliable sources that are not blogs, downloads & the like. Note that it was originally speedied; an editor removed some of the spam content, but it still reads like advert. Pgagnon999 (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't Delete, Text is much improved now. See external links (specially Adobe Security Partner Community link) which are notable and should be enough to make the text credible.Mwahaj (talk) 06:00, 7 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 Spartaz Humbug! 13:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IlliDell

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

It's an apparently nn chapter of Alpha Gamma Sigma (fraternity). Fails WP:CORP for local orgs. I'd have suggested a merge, but the information is solely about the local chapter, and neither the parent organization nor University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign have or would be improved by such specific information. List of Fraternities and Sororities at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign exists, however it's a list of the parent orgs, not the chapter specific information and requirements. This information is best suited to the chapter's website and not an encyclopedic article. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 17:43, 5 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 except signature updates.

The result was merge. I have redirected; knowledgable editors are enouraged to merge relevant information. seresin | wasn't he just...? 01:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tomizo Todayama

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

This is an article about a character from a Japanese tv show. This character, under a different name, already has an article under a name that is much more likely to be searched-for. Thusly, this article should go. The information within this article is repeated in the actual article, Kamen Rider Todoroki. Howa0082 (talk) 17:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Kamen Rider Todoroki the information does not match up so it should be confirmed if any content is worth merging. Since it is reasonable that someone would search with "Tomizo Todayama", there is no reason to delete the page when it can instead be a redirect. I don't quite see the reason why this is at AfD. -Verdatum (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's actually not reasonable at all. The character's non-Todoroki name is mentioned perhaps once in the entire series. If someone wants to know about Todoroki, they're not going to go looking for his lesser-known human name, since the Torodoki identity isn't an alternate identity like Superman, it's just who he is; it's a new name he takes up to symbolize his heroness. He never again goes by Todoyama. Which is why I don't feel this article should exist; if you know Todoroki's human name, it's almost impossible to not know who he is as a Kamen Rider, so why would you search for the lesser-known name? Howa0082 (talk) 18:38, 5 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. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Swanson

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

Not notable. This article consists mostly of original research. Having your name mentioned briefly in the New York Times or on a blog does not qualify as extensive coverage. Anyone can release PRwire press releases. 99.231.125.109 (talk) 09:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC) Text copied from talk page. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 17:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete The blogs and press releases do not count for much toward satisfying WP:BIO. The NY Tiles is a 2 sentence mention noting a job change. The Forbes link is broken, but no evidence it is more than a directory listing or passing reference. He sems on the bubble, and on the sliding toward deletion (for now) side of that bubble, due to the lack of multiple substantial coverage in reliable and independent sources. Edison (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Any subject which relies primarily on PRwire for sources is likely not notable, and Swanson fits that profile. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral both of the above comments make me neutral --Camaeron (talk) 21:33, 5 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, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Farris

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

Most of the text is based on rumor, resemblances and nonnotable achievements and events. The claim of there being a major label involved is unverifyable. Mostly all I can find are a handful of Myspace pages. Kingturtle (talk) 16:31, 5 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 (default keep). Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation for Rational Economics and Education

edit
Foundation for Rational Economics and Education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Political organization that appears to be solely related to Ron Paul with no notability of its own. All meaningful information already in the Ron Paul article and redirect attempt made, but redirect was reverted. -- Dougie WII (talk) 16:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A minor mention in Ron Paul's article is sufficient. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per both above...--Camaeron (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ron Paul's ownership of the foundation is insufficient reason to delete the article. The Austrian views promoted therein are held by other notable economists such as Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, David D. Friedman, and Walter Block, to name a few - not "solely" Representative Ron Paul. JLMadrigal (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Um, a few things here. First, the zany history, in that this was deleted on Feb 3 and my memory is that there was much more content. Two days ago I requested a history-only restoration of the prior article, but on first glance the history restored doesn't jibe with my memory of the article either. In short, I don't believe the decision should be made on the current version and the current history alone. Second, I did ask Dougie to hold off on sudden activity until the restored history could be reviewed, which he didn't. But getting to the content, Dougie's insertion of the content into Ron Paul did not fit neatly or flow well with the prior content in that section either, so the appeals to that article are inappropriate; there is more content than fits well in the parent article. Additionally, there is more that can be added, and FREE is also connected to the 2-month-old newsletter controversy, so there is volatility and deletion should not happen blindly in that context either. FREE is an independent Austrian economics think tank and NEFL is a significant media arm with many published videos unrelated to Paul directly. Since the closer will review the deletion arguments against the article's independence at closing time and not currently, I trust Madrigal and I will have time to fix this and all will be well. John J. Bulten (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC) I am told the whole history has been restored now; I have been remembering a different article. John J. Bulten (talk) 19:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC) Add: Paul plugged FREE in his latest campaign video, now also reflected in article per Wash Post. John J. Bulten (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ron Paul per nominator's arguments. Snthdiueoa (talk) 13:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Ron Paul or delete altogether - no evidence of notability presented. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mike, you seem to want to go into Round 42 of the discussion: whether the coverage in New York Times, Wash Post, and New Republic is reliable or significant. I recognize there is a bit less here than with other articles that have survived AFD, but even if you run with that, I'd hope you'd recognize that we've found enough during this AFD to be able to reasonably request being given another week or two to improve sourcing, whether Madrigal chimes in, or whether something turns up in book searches. John J. Bulten (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • reply the coverage is of Ron Paul; the organization is of no notability outside of its connection with him. AfD discussions are not meant to last an infinite period while people scrounge for evidence to back up their opinions. This is one of only four AfDs left which are this stale. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - marginal; there are lots of sources, but they appear to concern Ron Paul, not this group. Bearian (talk) 21:51, 13 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. faithless (speak) 06:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frisco Centennial High School

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

Not necessarily notable and hasn't had anything significant added to the article. Primarily a target for vandalism. Enigma msg! 04:35, 5 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 23:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I-glasses

edit
I-glasses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is blatant advertising. Speedy deletion was denied with no explanation. —BradV 18:29, 4 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 merge. There is clear consensus here that this article does not sufficiently demonstrate notability to merit stand-alone status, but less clear consensus as to whether or not the appropriate response is deletion or merger. Since lack of consensus to delete defaults to keep (not necessarily in current form), I am defaulting to the merge. The majority of those arguing for merge seem to suggest Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons) as the appropriate destination. A mention of the reworking of the legend may be appropriate in Lindworm, but there isn't really sufficient material here of real-world notability to merge. Perhaps a "see also" with a pointer to the appropriate new section would be appropriate. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linnorm (Dungeons & Dragons)

edit
Linnorm (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable Dungeons & Dragons monster. No evidence of third party coverage, but has appeared in numerous first party supplements. May deserve a mention on pages regarding dragons or undead, but I can see no reason why it deserves its own article. J Milburn (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am aware of what 'snide' means, and so I am capable of seeing that the original comment was not snide. 'Fancruft' is a recognised term regarding types of content- fancruft is information that would be of interest to only an extreme fan, and has no real encyclopedic value. That is what this is- the information is of interest only to fans of the game (myself included) but of no value to an encyclopedia. Describing this as fancruft is no more an insult than changing grammar in an article. If you believe people are being uncivil here, your perception of civility is a little warped. In any case, if we're going to be picky, I could respond that you should assume an assumption of good faith and call you uncivil for implying my assertion of cruft was cruftcruft. Thankfully though, I'm not picky. J Milburn (talk) 19:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "D&D Spring Cleaning" thing was in existence before the unfortunate news. If anything, cleaning up Wikipedia's treatment of D&D is an even BETTER idea now, as there are probably more people now than ever before coming to Wikipedia for information about Gary and his game. --Ig8887 (talk) 19:35, 6 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 fine as a redirect. Redirects are cheap. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 17:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sir edwin wijeyeratne

edit
Sir_edwin_wijeyeratne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

Please delete this page, as it seems to have been added by mistake: it says 'Sir edwin wijeyeratne' in the title, without correct use of capitals. Hence, please could this page be deleted, so that a new blank page can be created called 'Sir Edwin Wijeyeratne', which could be redirected to the 'Edwin Wijeyeratne' page already on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fitz Mackins (talk • contribs) 2008/03/05 11:39:42


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abdeslam Boulaich

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

Admin removed CSD#A7 from this article, I believe inappropriately. Removal comment was “Actually, this might be interesting if it can be expanded. Bowles is apparently notable for this sort of work”. This article is about Abdeslam, not Bowles (who has his own article). Further, A7 states speedy deletion is appropriate when an article “does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources”. CSD makes no consideration of what “might be interesting”. The article asserts no importance or significance.

Admin provided several possible sources on the talk page, which either do not constitute reliable sources as defined by WP:RS/WP:V, or are, again, about Bowles. This is a moot point, however, as notability is not the threshold for inclusion here (CSD#A7 explicitly differentiates between "importance or significance" and notability). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand if possible. Unfortunately, the remainder of my comment was cut off; a simple search in English found 1,800 hits on Boulaich. Obviously, a lot of that will be chaff - but he has a book listed on Amazon, and there's an English course that discusses one of his works. That is enough to warrant keeping the article so that we can investigate if more material can be found to expand it. (With regard to the nom's assertion that the removal of the tag was "inappropriate", and the comment on my talk page, it is important to note that the speedy deletion guidelines explicitly state "deletion is not required if a page meets these criteria" and "Any editor who is not the creator of a page may remove a speedy tag from it." Speedies are a request for deletion, not a directive; as an administrator, I'm supposed to assess if the request is warranted and act accordingly. As an editor, I'm entitled to disagree with another editor's opinion.) --Ckatzchatspy 18:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read comments critically. Phrasing of “appears to be an unambiguous judgment error” and “I believe your removal of the CSD from Abdeslam Boulaich to be inappropriate” are clear in their expression that are my opinions, not that they are correct and/or constitute a "directive". Your entitlement to disagree is not in dispute. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on the speedy denial issue. Speedy is supposed to be declined if there is an assertion of importance, and being a storyteller may not be one, but being a translated storyteller surely is. It is not proof of notability, but it's sufficient to deny speedy. Speedy was declined, and we are now in AFD, so the issue is moot. --Dhartung | Talk 20:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. His work passes criterion 4 of WP:BK as the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs [11] [12] [13] [14]. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Keep. I tried adding some references but what I could find was very minimal. I couldn't find any biographical data. Things like this would be useful to the article. Renee (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 00:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assumption College, Warwick

edit
Assumption College, Warwick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prodded as a non-notable college. I contested the prod under the assumption that almost all colleges are considered notable. However, since this one doesn't appear to be the subject of any reliable sources, and since I contested the prod, I'm taking this to AfD. Weak delete unless sources can be found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 15:53, 5 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 the consensus of this discussion is delete, unless WP:RS were presented , the references dont go to the extent of satisfying notability as per WP:Athlete;

the first point of that competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent there arent any sources to support him as being professional.
As an amateur the requirement is highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them), its the lack of secondary sources.

Taking all of this into consideration, on the surface there appears to be potential for an article if sources to address the notability are provided. Suggest that media outlets in his home may have written articles at the time his winning the Portuguese title... If sources are provided then the article deletion can be/should be reversed. Gnangarra 05:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Barradas

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

Contested speedy. Seems to be a non-notable kickboxer. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 15:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are some mentions of him in various online references, but no actual significant coverage in reliable sources that I can find. The two references above are examples of that: the first is a forum site (which does not meet WP:RS in any case), and merely lists his name in a list of matches, and in the second, there is a single mention of his name in an interview with someone else. This does not add up to notability per WP:ATHLETE. --MCB (talk) 04:21, 14 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 Spartaz Humbug! 14:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Rice

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

Autobiography of apparent non-notable artist. Wizardman 15:33, 5 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 Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wurzburg's

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

Local store that doesn't seem to establish notability. Wizardman 15:25, 5 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) 03:38, 11 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 except signature updates.

The result was keep. The clarification after the initial AFD shows that the church is notable. Elkman (Elkspeak) 17:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lanka Lutheran Church

edit
Lanka Lutheran Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Individual churches generally aren't notable, particularly if they fail WP:V and WP:RS. Wizardman 15:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete No evidence of being specially singled out, such as an American church on the National Register of Historic Places would be. Interesting, by the way, that the article says that it's a small church, with only 1200 members! Nyttend (talk) 19:35, 5 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 Although the discussion is hung either way, we need to judge consensus against policy and the policy on wikipedia articles is that the content of articles must be verifiable. In this case this us a super-stub and there is actually not meaningful information to verify. I'm inclined to the view that the subject in inherently notable so I can't see any conclusion except that we should keep this as it stands. Spartaz Humbug! 14:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congress of Chiropractic State Associations

edit
Congress of Chiropractic State Associations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

May be notable, but as it stands it fails WP:V and WP:RS. Wizardman 15:21, 5 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. Looks far better now, so I'm going to close this. Wizardman 19:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sibleys Shoes

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

Apparent local company, fails to establish notability through reliable sources. Wizardman 15:19, 5 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.

Ego the Living Planet

edit

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closing) - Milk's Favorite Cookie 20:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC) I'll sign off as endorsing admin. Hiding T 23:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ego the Living Planet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I consider myself reasonably familiar with comic books. This charatacter did not make an impression on me, and apparently not on the real world either, since there are no third-party sources on the page. Article is written entirely in-universe, and if you look at the history, attempts to make it less so were purged. My reliable sources tag was removed, with edit summary "removed third party tag as comics are sources". In summary: non-notable, no reliable sources. Blast Ulna (talk) 14:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I'll be coming up with an out-of-universe section as soon as I can, but I've been bogged down with doing the same on other Marvel AFD'ed articles lately plus plenty of real life stuff. Character has had a number of appearances over its 40+ year history, and has appeared in various Marvel cartoon shows. BOZ (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - although victim to a minimalistic page editiing, this character has been a notable comics villain for the past 40 years appearing in other medium such a video games and television. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep - looks like a poster who is simply irked and is being petty. Once again, the comic are the main sources, and the fact that someone has not heard of a character, or that they "did not make an impression on me" is not grounds for deletion. Asgardian (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Assume good faith. In my nomination, I said "no sources". Removing tags and claiming that the comics books themselves are third party sources makes me think that certain people don't know whhat notability means, The wave of "Keeeps" here, all of which rely on primary sources or personal belief that the character is important, make me wonder. Blast Ulna (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, comics by established publishers such as Marvel are obviously reliable sources for their own content. In-universe writing is a flaw, but it's a matter for editing, not for deletion. The comments above already deal with the notability issue. Postdlf (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The comment "primary sources do not count as reliable sources" is erroneous. For over 40 years the comics have been the primary sources. When Fantastic Four #48 (vol. 1) was published, it featured the first appearances of the Silver Surfer and Galactus. This is fact. This was the primary source - there was no other. To this day, the comic is used as the main source, a point acknowledged on both characters' article pages.

Also, hundreds of characters have never had a comic of their own. Again, this is not grounds for deletion. Do the master villains like Magneto; Ultron and Dormammu have their articles deleted because they never had a series?

Finally, there is the comment - "personal belief that the character is important". This is also a fallacy. If a character has appeared in over 3 decades of comics printed by a publisher, then they themselves deem the character important, and it is this notion that others now support.

Keep, keep, keep.

Asgardian (talk) 23:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • All that is needed is a couple of outside sources on the character, that's all. If he has been around for so many years, surely there are some sources? Blast Ulna (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Outside of what, anything published by Marvel Comics? I honestly can understand you wanting such a thing, but there is no consensus for limiting articles on individual elements of notable fictional universes in this manner. It's really a matter of how detailed should Wikipedia's coverage of a notable thing be. In many cases, such as where a character has only appeared in one individual book, film, video game, etc, there will usually be a consensus to merge into lists ("minor sith characters," whatever). But here, where a character has appeared in multiple publications and media adaptations over decades... Plus where would you merge it? Postdlf (talk) 23:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Character appears in many different titles over many years, basically what everyone else has said. joshschr (Talk | contribs) 23:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to closer I'll abstain from posting my views here since I'm bringing this up, but I should point out the Comics WikiProject was notified of this discussion as a "speedy keep" issue by an IP here, so vote-stacking will be an obvious issue and should be duly noted. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As per Wikipedia:Canvassing, "messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process". For example, users who would not normally comment on the article votestack. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what your point is about votes, Blast. The character has a well developed in-universe history with ties to many notable Marvel characters and a constant presence over most of Marvel's publishing history. Consensus seems to be that the character is notable, and at least one editor has volunteered to add better sources, although there is already a variety of noted issues in the article. joshschr (Talk | contribs) 00:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't like it's the "WikiProject for Keeping Comics." Those interested in comics as a subject aren't predisposed to keep an article just because it's about a comics-related subject. One might as well complain about the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions; does that list and others like it just function to vote-stack? True "canvassing" of the kind that should be frowned upon would be to selectively e-mail or leave talk page messages just for certain like-minded users, obviously a far cry from a public posting on a subject-specific project page, no matter how hopeful that posting was of a particular result. Further, to even raise the concern after seeing that the comments above have substantively responded to the arguments (not, "keep, I love comix!! LOL!") is rather puzzling. Postdlf (talk) 01:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of the members of WikiProject Comics share the same brain. One need only to look to the many, many debates about content (or edit wars, for that matter) between project members to know that this is true. Yes, the notification should have been phrased in a more neutral manner, but it clearly falls under the category of friendly notice. Canvassing would be soliciting specific people to support one's cause. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Noteable, heck DC comic book's living planet (Mogo) has it's own article. P.S. For the sake of record, Magneto has had more then one comic book series. Lots42 (talk) 02:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: while most people agree that the character is important because of its longevity and so on, this (like some other similar recent AFD's) has the big problem that that is not sufficient. If the character is not discussed in independent (i.e. not by Marvel), reliable sources, then it fails WP:N and it fails our basic aim to be a tertiary source, not a secondary source. What we need are in depth sources. The character gets mentioned in one article[15] (snippet view [16]). It gets mentioned in a few books, but nothing beyond a passing mention. All in all, this looks to be one of those things that has been around for years but hasn't gotten any serious attention outside fan circles. Should we have an article on it? No, not really. There are over 1,200 articles in the Category:Marvel Comics supervillains alone, I don't believe all of them are notable, and there is no evidence from reliable sources that this one is. Fram (talk) 09:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As extremely goddam STRONG KEEP as is possible !!! I cannot BELIEVE this AFD. Ego, the Living Planet, is one of the most mind-blowing creations of Jack Kirby at the height of his powers. Fram says Ego's not notable? This is a villain who has survived for over 40 years. Even after Kirby's withdrawal, Ego has been taken up by such other notable writers and cartoonists as Stan Lee,Gerry Conway,John Buscema,Rich Buckler,John Byrne,Steve Ditko,Marshall Rogers, Steve Englehart and on and on!

If a recurring character were to be published over 40 years in The New Yorker or The Saturday Evening Post, written by star authors, would that not de facto confer notability? Marvel Comics is the equivalent.

Note that the nominator has also frivolously nominated The Uncanny X-Men for deletion in the past. "I consider myself reasonably familiar with comic books" [...] Hah! If you are, then this is bad faith nomination. If you aren't, then you have no business commenting on comics at all.

Deletionism is being roundly abused. Rhinoracer (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a recurring character was published for forty years in The New Yorker, and gets no reviews, in depth studies, ... in reliable independent sources, then it is not notable. Of course, the chance of this happening is very small, but then again, The New Yorker doesn't have thousands of recurring characters, contrary to the Marvel Universe. If there are no articles in e.g. TCJ or whatever reliable source you prefer about "celebrating 10 / 20 / 30 / 40 years of Ego" or anything remotely similar, if not one book or article not published by Marvel hasn't spent even a page about the history of Ego or the differences between Ego and other "living planets" in science fiction or whatever angle you can imagine, then all we have is a truckload of fans thinking that longevity means notability, and not a single good source agreeing with this. Fram (talk) 08:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; for many reasons. First, the character has appeared in multiple media, including the Fantastic Four cartoon. Second, the character has had a song by an third-party band (that is, one with no affiiliation with Marvel) named after him. That leaves WIkipedia with a high likelihood that someone will see the name of the song and wonder what the heck an "Ego, the Living Planet" is. It would be nice if Wikipedia was capable of serving its intended purpose. Third, the character HAS had his own comic: the 2001 issue Maximum Security: Dangerous Planet. The "planet" in question is Ego, the Living Planet. Further, the remainder of the Maximum Security miniseries features him as the primary villain. Any review of Maximum Security, therefore, is also a discussion of Ego. --Ig8887 (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • See, I knew adding a Publication History section was a good idea.  :) I found a note on that "Oni Press Color Special" - anyone know what that is, or if it would count as a secondary source? BOZ (talk) 20:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the definition of notability is changing I see. I guess Ego have alternate versions and appearing in the Silver Surfer cartoon makes him obscure. StarSpangledKiwi (talk) 20:37, 7 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 Renata (talk) 23:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

String-Man (Story)

edit
String-Man (Story) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable comic, no sources or Google hits to verify anything in the article. Elaborate hoax perhaps, or something that was made up one day. Prod removed by author, sending to AfD per procedure. Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:27, 5 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. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Krimson Creek

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

Unreleased album (crystal ballism) with little or no media coverage and no references. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums and songs and WP:V. Prod declined because the article had been previously deleted via prod (?). —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 14:17, 5 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. Article did not indicate the importance or significance of its subject. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald McGauley

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

Not notable - the article itself states "Until this date Gerald McGauley is still not famous" Gil Gamesh (talk) 14:11, 5 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 Boldly redirected by myself to Standard score per consensus. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Standardized variable

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

Transwikied dictionary definition. TexasAndroid (talk) 14:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. CSD A5, any article that either consists only of a dictionary definition, has already been transwikied. Has been tagged. Speedy redirect. Author has requested time to expand the article, as per Moonriddengirl's comments, so it shouldn't be speedily deleted. Either way, the content is redundant with the article that Qwfp brought up, so it should warrant a speedy redirect instead.--TBC!?! 14:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless the article is expanded beyond dictionary definition by the closure of this AfD. Tree Biting Conspiracy (great name!) is quite right that it qualifies, but I have declined the speedy as a courtesy to the creator, who opined on March 4th that "Yes it needs expanding - but should not be deleted." This gives him or other editors an opportunity to expand it if they choose. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per proposal by Qwfp and consent of the creator. No other substantial contributors to the article. Such a speedy redirect requires consent of TexasAndroid, of course, since the AfD was proposed in good faith. If TexasAndroid consents and no other arguments are advanced for deletion, closure of the AfD by Wikipedia:Speedy keep and then redirection should be uncontroversial. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No objections. Good outcome. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:35, 5 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. No assertation of notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert nordmark quartet

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

Un-notable band. αѕєηιηє t/c 13:59, 5 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. faithless (speak) 06:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood (rapper)

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

Non-notable rapper. Only notability is an unreferenced claim to be the "biggest artist on the Done Deal label" (which, if you read the Done Deal article, isn't much of a claim). Fails WP:MUSIC. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 13:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also listing his album article for this deletion discussion:

Live N' Direct from Rich City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 16:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Delete per Hallo, comment --Camaeron (talk) 21:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with San Quinn The point of the CD comment was that B&N is not an independent record store -- they are a major company. The album is called "San Quinn Presents Hollywood" and since San Quinn is mentioned in Billboard and Rolling Stone, and has had several albums that have been on the top 200, it might be best to merge Hollywood with him. JoeD80 (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 10:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lulu Popplewell

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

Not even mentioned in the Love Actually article, seems an unremarkable child actor. αѕєηιηє t/c 13:25, 5 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 Wolf Parade. I will update the Pardon My Blues page to redirect to Wolf Parade. If any content of the current article would be useful in the main article, use the redirect page's history to access it as it will be intact. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon My Blues

edit
Pardon My Blues (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:CRYSTAL; speculative article over an album that is not due out for several months yet. Next to no information available, and certainly nothing that warrants its own article. Google results for any more reliable sources are very sparse; and irregardless, I don't see enough content for an article on this. Also note that the article has "March or April 2008" as a release date, while the infobox says "June 2008", all pointing towards there really being nowhere near enough information available to warrant an article on this subject as of yet. There's more reliably sourced information on this album on the artist's page (Wolf Parade) than on this page, so no merging would be required. No objection to recreation at a later date when there is enough detail available to create an article on the album. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 13:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ——Torc. (Talk.) 01:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - I'm tempted to say rename to "Wolf Parade's Second Album" or merge and redirect, but there just isn't enough. The citation in the article looks outdated given this more recent article. The Wiki article even says the name is "speculative". —Torc. (Talk.) 02:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The citation posted by —Torc. is from an October 2007 interview at the Iceland Airwaves festival. Later, in a December 2007 interview, Dan Boeckner reported on the new album that "we have two more days of tracking overdubs, and then we’re done. We mix in January and it should be out in March or April." The album is a definite; however, the title is less known (Boeckner refered to their new album as Pardon My Blues in this article), so a rename to "Wolf Parade's Second Album" might be better. If you delete this page, it'll just be re-made in a couple months with the official release of the album. The "June 2008" date in the info box needs to be updated to April '08. (Fulmerg (talk) 21:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    • I have no problem with it being recreated once there are sufficient non-trivial, third party sources available and/or it is officially released - I'm not denying it. It may also be near-definite but there are next to no sources available right now and so isn't really suitable for an article of its own. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 21:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, not doubting you, but where did you get the date on the Iceland article? I can't find it. Anyway, I think the rename is a minimum. The information about the album can be merged to the main artist's article until the album title and release date are set. The current WP:MUSIC guideline does require a scheduled release date as minimum for an independent album article, and there just isn't enough verifiable content to justify having this as a separate article. —Torc. (Talk.) 01:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just to clarify, the interview is actually from October 2006 when Wolf Parade played the Iceland Airwaves festival [17], though I'm not sure why this website is just now posting this online. All of the comments he makes don't add up if it were current material - For example Boeckner refers to his "fiancée"; however, he actually got married in July '07. I'll vote to merge since technically it doesn't belong here yet.(Fulmerg (talk) 03:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Non-admin close. Jfire (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tvojaekipa

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

Non-notable social networking site, has 322 users as of this writing (see http://www.tvojaekipa.com/home.php). Was prodded unsuccessfully. GregorB (talk) 12:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Notability unless solid indie refs can be provided.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 14:43, 5 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 23:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2002 FIFA World Cup (match reports)

edit
2002 FIFA World Cup (match reports) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Following the deletion of 1998 FIFA World Cup (match reports) and AfD'ing 1994 FIFA World Cup (match reports). Pretty much all of the information on this page is included on 2002 FIFA World Cup, except for the detailed analysis of the final. Perhaps it could be copied to 2002 FIFA World Cup Final.  ARTYOM  12:50, 5 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, with protection against recreation. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Hambly

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

Non notable musical student. Anon IP accounts (99.231.53.181, 99.232.138.1 etc.) have repeatedly removed notices questioning bio-notability etc. Kleinzach (talk) 12:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reads promotional, notability not sufficiently established (singing roles is not notability in itself, what counts is who you sing with). Delete. Moreschi (talk) 14:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Google general web search produces nothing apart from his management company page and Wikpedia and its various mirrors. Searches on Google News (archives for all dates), Google Scholar, Google Books, and Highbeam Research all fail to produce anything. I also followed the links given in the Wikipedia article with the following results:
  1. According to the Humber College web site he is a faculty member on the certificate of post-secondary education program but not a "Professor" as stated in the article.
  2. There is no such thing as "The Career Development Award" from the Canada Council for the Arts. They give carreer development grants for emerging artists to pursue further training etc.
  3. He is mentioned briefly but favourably along with the other solists in a review of Mozart's C Minor Mass performed by Symphony Nova Scotia (Halifax Chonicle Herald April 3, 2004). I checked their archives. Nothing else.
According to the Wikipedia article: Hambly has been declared as "one of Canada’s outstanding soloists." However it doesn't say by whom. It also lists a lot of opera performances, some of them in major roles. But it doesn't say where these performances took place (which prominent professional opera company or festival). If the principle contributors to the article could provide that information and it could be verified by independent sources. I might consider changing my mind. Voceditenore (talk) 14:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hopefully, they really will wait until he's notable. The article has already been deleted three times. This will make the fourth. Voceditenore (talk) 20:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. GreenJoe 13:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with no bar to recreation if his career generates reliable sources for an article or if the unsourced quote "one of Canada’s outstanding soloists" can be attributed to a notable individual or an article in a major publication. and protect as suggested below. If someone wants to recreate the article with sources they can propose it on the talk page. Reggie Perrin (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is it technically possible to bar recreation for, say, three years? Last time it was deleted on 28 September and then recreated on 10 November (2007). -- Kleinzach (talk) 03:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is. Non-existent articles can now be protected. I agree this should be done. Moreschi (talk) 14:00, 7 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. I doubt extending the debate would result in a consensus being reached. faithless (speak) 06:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of professional sportspeople convicted of crimes

edit
AfDs for this article:
List of professional sportspeople convicted of crimes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unencyclopaedic and (in places) poorly sourced article. If this sort of information is to be kept on Wikipedia it would be best represented by a category, however I would suggest that there is no need to list this info seperately and that a line or paragraph in each bio article would be sufficient.

This article is a series of untidy lists, each of which is so far from complete that it becomes misrepresentative, and is, in places, lacking references making it in violation of WP:PROVEIT and probably even WP:LIBEL. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 12:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's limited to actual convictions, rather than mere accusations; it's well-sourced, which is what is expected of Wikipedia articles. The objection is that it "is, in places, lacking"? Then edit it. Mandsford (talk) 12:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no, the objection is not that it "is, in places, lacking", it is that it is totally unencyclopaedic. The fact that these people play sports professionally and have been convicted of crimes is totally unrelated. It is a trivial intersection. Can you really imagine finding such an article in any respectable encyclopedia? And what's next? List of television personalities who have received parking tickets? Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 13:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as article is not unreferenced and the details of the crimes are neutrally presented. As Mandsford says, improve the article rather than delete it. GiantSnowman (talk) 12:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As discussed at WT:FOOTY, I don't believe there are any problems with this list that aren't fixable. There's plenty of referenced material and plenty more that can be found. Incompleteness isn't a reason for deletion, nor is untidiness, nor are gaps in referencing. I have some concerns over WP:BLP, but like every single Wikipedia article, we need to remain vigilant for BLP breaches; we're hardly going to delete every single article. Again, that's no reason for deletion. The list is useful, can be NPOV and Verifiable. Why delete? --Dweller (talk) 12:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's well-sourced. If you doubt credibility of some particular sources, remove people whose crimes they're used to source, but deleting the page makes no sence. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 12:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't see how this is notable, it certainly doesn't establish what the point is to this article, it's about as useful as List of righthanded sportspeople.John Hayestalk 12:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a strawman argument. This is a useful list for anyone, for example, researching criminality in different sports. --Dweller (talk) 12:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But it's not about criminality in sports, it's just a list linking two random facts, that these people are sportspeople, and at some point have been convicted of a crime. I would be happy to keep it if there was some sort of explaination of why this list exists, maybe showing that this is something which has been the subject of studies, etc. John Hayestalk 13:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've replied below, how this is not linking two random facts. --Dweller (talk) 15:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per Dweller -- Alexf42 13:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - completely irrelevant intersection of occupation and conviction. No more relevant or encyclopaedic than a list of plumbers who like country music. - fchd (talk) 13:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Criminality in sportsmen is a notable issue in itself. As with the drugs in sport issue, it is a point often raised in serious debate of sportsmen as role models. As such, I find such a list to be not at all random or useless. You can disagree, but you can't disagree that others might find it useful. --Dweller (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - WP:USEFUL? The crimes committed by the people on this list are, for the most part, completely irrelevant to their status as sportsmen. Drug-related ones may well be the exception. I still cannot see what purpose this intersection of two characteristics serves. I think we'll have to agree to disagree! - fchd (talk) 13:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – A lot of people seem to be jumping on the fact that I mentioned that the article is not referenced in places and that it is very far from complete. The only reason that I mentioned this was to illustrate the huge amount of work that would be required to bring the article up to a reasonable standard. As the list is totally unencyclopaedic I don't think that it is worth the effort. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 14:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I still haven't seen a good reason for keeping the article yet either. All of the arguments offered so far seem to amount to WP:ITSUSEFUL or WP:HARMLESS, which are debatable anyway. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 14:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm glad you raised that. WP:ATA suggests "When taking part in deletion discussions, then, it is best to base arguments on the policies of neutral point of view, no original research, verifiability, biographies of living people and what Wikipedia is not, or on Wikipedia guidelines.". So, let's take those in turn. The list is NPOV, does not depend on OR, fulfils V, can be monitored to protect BLP and is not covered by WP:NOT. So, where does this leave us? --Dweller (talk) 14:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about WP:NOT#DIRECTORY?
Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "People from ethnic/cultural/religious group X employed by organization Y" or "Restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories like these are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon.
I really don't see how this article can be considered encyclopaedic. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 17:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While it may fall under WP:ITSUSEFUL or WP:HARMLESS, it is highly used by some teachers/coaches that I know to help keep their students in line. Although most people would not think this is very important, from an educational standpoint, I think it is prudent to show that athletes are not perfect it should be made easier to use as a cross reference to show that it also isn't a recent development in sports as well. I do recommend that it should be cleaned up overall, though. --Hourick (talk) 14:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but only if it aims to cover solely sportsmen who have been permanently convicted and have no legal chance to appeal the sentence. In addition, a source must be provided for every single name in the list in order to avoid risky consequences. --Angelo (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that suggestion is that I would imagine that the vast majority of references don't state whether or not the subject has any legal chance to appeal the sentence. It would also need several editors to keep a close watch over the article to filter out unsourced material which clearly isn't happening at present. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 17:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can understand that some people believe that this isn't encyclopedic. However, books have been written about the subject, such as Benedict & Yaeger's Pros and Cons: The Criminals Who Play in the NFL (Warner Books, 1998), which made the point that there a good deal of convicted criminals who play pro ball and, because of their celebrity status, tend to get away with it. Celebrities are just like you and me, except when it comes to sentencing. Many of us believe that it is encylopaedic if a notable person has been convicted of a criminal offense, and a sourced list -- emphasis on sourced -- is what separates the guilty from the accused. I agree with the nominator that a list of celebrities who got parking tickets would be absurd... Mandsford (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I really don't know what it's like outside the USA, but here celebrities (including professional sportpeople) are always getting in trouble, and the media is always highlighting the events. Nobody cares about the event of a celebrity getting a parking ticket, but because many celebrities are highlighted because of their criminality, this is potentially a useful list (aside from referencing problems etc). If people are always paying attention to celebrities because they did certain things, I can't see why it would be a problem to have a sourced, NPOV article about such a situation. Nyttend (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although it may seem as if these are two unrelated traits, there is a long history of scandals affected teams or entire leagues when individual players become involved in criminal acts, and they receive (quite possibly unwarranted) coverage over time making the events notable. Frequently there are career-altering effects for the individuals. --Dhartung | Talk 20:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems like a trivial intersection of categories. Are there reliable third party sources who have written about the importance of sports celebrities whith criminal conviction as a group, rather than the generous coverage of each one convicted of homicide or dog fighting? Unless the juxtaposition of sports partici[ation and crime has reliable attestation, the article is as arbitrary as Astronauts with bald spots , News presenters allergic to cats or Internet notables whose clothes are for sale on Ebay.If we have to keep it, could we perhaps save server space by replacing it with List of sports figures who have not been convicted of a crime? Edison (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    3.1 million Google hits for "crime in sport". Many deal with sport used in crime prevention, but others with our topic. Here's a heavyweight one from the 2nd page of G-hits: [18] --Dweller (talk) 08:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not sure whether delete / keep, but I'm certainly wary that the British legal system includes Rehabilitation of Offenders, whereby offences are "spent" after a certain period of time. Peanut4 (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The deletion nomination reasons are wrong on every count. It is well sourced, it is a topic of encyclopedic interest as is plainly obvious by the fact that it has been the subject of books, and it is not a trivial intersection of categories. It isn't a category at all, and shouldn't be. It's an excellent example of why this sort of subject is better treated in a list, as individual entries can be sourced and annotated. Persons commenting here that it is a trivial intersection are not knowledgable about the subject, as it has also been the subject of academic study. Quale (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there's quite a bit of commentary on the issue of crime among sportspeople, so this is not just a random intersection of two qualities. As for the arguments along the lines of "What about List of newscasters who are allergic to cats," then if at some point there starts to be significant commentary (multiple articles and books written) about the unusually high prevalence of cat allergies among newscasters, then yes, at that point we should have List of newscasters who are allergic to cats too. In response to the claim that a close eye would have to be kept on the article to avoid addition of unnecessary information, yes, that's certainly true but not a reason to delete. I certainly have at least a couple of articles on my watchlist where people often add unsourced and OR examples, but that's not a reason to delete those articles. Chuck (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just to quote my statement from the original AFD - 'Here are some web pages I found in three minutes on Google - [19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26]. Would you like me to try twenty minutes? I don't think you can find this kind of interest in accountants who have committed crimes." If there is any living person on the list who's conviction is not sourced, they should be removed, but it's clearly not a trivial intersection. CitiCat ♫ 19:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:BLP, WP:NPF Are these people notable for the crime? in some cases yes, in others no. Tonya Harding, yes, Naseem Hamad, no. Plenty of others have done the same crimes, where is their mention. Do no harm, presumption in favour of privacy etc. At very least, limit it to persons whose crime is related to their notability.--ClubOranje (talk) 10:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We do no harm, and break no privacy by relating sourced negativity about living people. We harm and break privacy when we use unsourced material. And incompleteness isn't a reason for deletion either. --Dweller (talk) 23:07, 10 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 23:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1994 FIFA World Cup (match reports)

edit
1994 FIFA World Cup (match reports) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

As a follow-up to the AfD of 1998 FIFA World Cup (match reports), I believe this article is also eligible for deletion. It adds nothing to the Summary section of the main article, as most of the text is the same. – PeeJay 11:37, 5 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 Merge and Redirect (non-admin closure), I've merged the information from this article to the suggested album article and will be redirecting as per consensus. Torchwood Who? (talk) 20:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Was a Stranger

edit
I Was a Stranger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Song doesn't seem to be notable; the released/recorded dates are actually that of the album this song's found on (Red Apple Falls). The main article also says that only Ex-Con was released off this album, and AMG agrees. The song simply being re-released on an EP doesn't really confer any notability - and is already marked on both articles involved (Red Apple Falls & 'Neath the Puke Tree). The album, the EP and the band are notable, but notability is not inherited or conferred; delete. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 11:17, 5 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. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chester French

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

Delete Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete In addition to the above reasoning I will add WP:ADVERT and WP:CRYSTAL. And that is ignoring the WP:NPOV which is not grounds for deletion. I do not think Wikipedia is the place for press releases. Change to Keep per Tree Biting Conspiracy's updates Mstuczynski (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 10:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I may be incorrect here, but as far as I know they only have to qualify under one of the WP:MUSIC criteria. It looks to me like they qualify under #1 and #10. #10 being acceptable as it is not the sole claim to notability. Mstuczynski (talk) 01:29, 6 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 23:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bohammed

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

Originally Prod tagged. Essentially a neologism with no notability. WP:NEO. Wisdom89 (T / C) 10:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThe article was created today, shouldn't we wait a while first?--Agha Nader (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was created yesterday. However, that's not the point. Neologisms don't meet the criteria for WP:CSD, and so I prod nominated it. The author removed the template - which is tantamount to saying "it is notable, here is why" - except the why never came, which is why it's now here at AfD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisdom89 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 7 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. faithless (speak) 06:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abc school portraits

edit
Abc school portraits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable company. Fails WP:CORP. [27] Wisdom89 (T / C) 09:51, 5 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 merge to History of Doctor Who. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is simply a fair use image gallery of Doctor Who idents. Guy (Help!) 09:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to History of Doctor Who per the arguments in the original AfD. I just can't see that the logos warrant their own individual article, and they need to be merged somewhere. - Fritzpoll (talk) 11:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I was originally going to say WP:SIZE, but after looking at both the nominated article, and the proposed target for merge, it would appear that the merge target can easily support the addition of this material. I'd suggest trimming out a lot of the logo explanations. Yngvarr (c) 12:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into List of Doctor Who serials, or merge the text with only one "example" image into History of Doctor Who. I can't say whether the logos serve any encyclopedic value before seeing the final result, but the nom's rationale of an improper fairuse image gallery holds much weight, especially since the history article already has 14 non-free images. – sgeureka t•c 13:24, 5 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 discussion below. Non-admin close. --jonny-mt 15:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asif Azam Siddiqi

edit
Asif Azam Siddiqi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

contested prod Unnotable biography without sufficient references. Oo7565 (talk) 09:02, 5 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. faithless (speak) 06:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Davidson

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

Non-notable person, and article without good solid sources, and reads like somewhat of an ad/resume. Jmlk17 08:54, 5 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. faithless (speak) 06:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answerconnect

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

No assertion of notability. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:37, 5 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 consensus. Also, there are some good suggestions to complete a merge with Global (disambiguation), but that's a discussion for the talk pages, not AfD, admin involvement not needed. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Global

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

Unreferenced original research, tagged as such for almost a year. Beeblbrox (talk) 08:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • What I am saying is that the article is original research because conclusions are drawn that are not stated by the sources. I think this AfD needs to be relisted so we can get some more voices and find some consensus. Beeblbrox (talk) 06:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What it does is state usages and gives sourced examples so those usages can be verified. Sure it needs more sources but that is an editorial matter. The question of relisting is for the closing admin. BlueValour (talk) 14:10, 12 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 merge. Information from this article was evidently used already to fill in information at List of radio stations in California, so this is no longer a candidate for deletion for GFDL reasons. However, there is no consensus to keep this as a stand-alone list and plenty of arguments advanced for deletion or merger. With respect to incorporating this material into any future articles on Media in Sacramento, such material can of course be obtained from the article's history as long as the merger is properly noted per Help:Merge.--Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of radio stations in Sacramento

edit
List of radio stations in Sacramento (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is a list of radio stations in a particular arbitrarily-defined radio station market. List of radio stations in California already covers this particular area and is both current and of the currently accepted form (United States radio lists are on the state level). This is one of only two lists covering United States radio stations in this manner. (See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of radio stations in Stockton and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of radio stations in the Monterey Bay area, currently up for deletion.) JPG-GR (talk) 07:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Far from being "arbitrarily-defined", media markets such as these are well-defined by Arbitron (see list of markets here to see how Sacramento is the #27 market). Radio markets are the industry standard for geographical categorization of radio stations. This list has been recently updated from two reliable sources: RadioStationWorld page for Sacramento and an Inside Radio station search (type Sacramento into the City/Market to get an equivalent list). While stations may serve or have listeners in more than one market, every station serving a market has a primary market to which it can be assigned, and is assigned, according to these sources. (Some stations might not belong to any market, but that is no reason to delete lists of stations which do serve a market.) List of radio stations in California does not incoprorate all of the information from this list, instead, the statewide list is now simply a wikified FCC database dump which does not have Owner and Format information updated, and omits Branding entirely (many stations are known more by their branding than by their callsign, yet this important information is omitted from the statewide lists). The statewide list contains 800+ radio stations and is 62KB long, and such a long sortable table causes performance issues in some browsers, as well as being unhelpful for the reader and/or editor seeking information about stations within their own market area, which is generally the set of stations to which such a typical reader or editor will be able to tune and listen. I happen to think having to sort and search through a list of 800+ radio stations, to find the 5 to 20 percent or so that I can actually hear from any given ___location in the state, is rather inefficient, especially on slower computers which may take a while to sort that table. Then having to know the name of every city in the region which has a radio station to find them all. I may not be the only one who thinks these large statewide lists are unwieldly, because so far very few have bothered to update the Owner and Format fields in List of radio stations in California, or List of radio stations in Texas for that matter, both large unwieldly lists (owner and format information, as well as branding, was included in the lists before JPG-GR replaced the lists with the new tables). The only reason so few of these market lists remain is that the nominator recently {{prod}}-ded many other lists I was working on, and I had not objected in time. (I am often away from editing Wikipedia for extended periods of time due to other priorities in my life.) When I requested undeletion, the deleting administrator did not restore the articles as is usual practice for a contested PROD, but userfied the content instead. Other similar lists (including statewide lists which were organized by market area), which had existed in the past for years, were also redirected a few months back, also by the nominator, and replaced by wikified FCC database dumps. The FCC does not track radio market areas, but many other reliable sources do. Market-area lists such as this one conform to our content policies of verifiability based on reliable sources, no original research, and neutral point of view, and conform to notability guidelines and list guidelines, so there is no policy-based reason to delete these lists. We all agreed that the previous state of inconsistently-formatted and spottedly coordinated SIX statewide lists for each state, became unecessary because of the new sortable wikitable feature, and there was consensus in the discussions at WT:WPRS to replace most of these with sortable wikitables, because the lists sorted by city, owner, format, and frequency could all be sorted in one sortable table. But there was no consenus on what to do about market areas, and you solely made the decision to keep them out of the new tables. I asked that the separate market area lists remain, and you appeared to concede to leave the California market lists alone so that I could work on them. Now, less than 5 months later, you've proposed and nominated them for deletion! I know I am to assume good faith, but I can't help but wonder if I am being "punished" for having other priorities and not working on them in these last few months, or if I would have wasted my time had I actually worked hard on them and completed them, only to still have them nominated for deletion? Redundancy is not a valid reason for deletion, and similar to how categories, lists, and navigational templates are encouraged to co-exist and be used to update each other in synergy, the market lists should be considered to complement the statewide lists and market templates, and each should be used to update the others. The templates are a basic navigational aid, while the lists give a more comprehensive overview of each region's radio stations. Even deletion policy says that duplicate articles should be merged and redirected, not deleted outright. But if market lists are redundant to statewide lists, does that also mean that the state lists are redundant to the nationwide callsign lists? All the information in the 50 state lists should also be in the 12 or so national lists, so they're "wholly redundant": should one of these sets of lists be deleted? DHowell (talk) 09:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question This is a rather lengthy argument, so forgive me if this question is addressed, but it sounds like you're saying this layout is better than the layout in the state page. My question then is, why not merge it into the state page and alter the rest of the state page to allow this type of content to be added to all stations in that article. Just because a reputable organization chooses to categorize information in one way doesn't mean WP should or must follow suit. Concensus seems to be to list by state as it results in an understandable organization of the information into articles that are neither too long or too short. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verdatum (talk • contribs) 18:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        1. The state page is already 62KB, and adding owner, format, branding, and market area to each station would no doubt push it way over the 100KB limit where we are supposed to split pages. This is hardly not "too long".
        2. The current state list has no accomodation for branding or market area so I'd have to add new columns to 800+ lines of wikitable at once.
        3. I have reason to believe that JPG-GR would revert any attempt to deviate the state list from the format he has personally decided all state radio lists must be in. (JPG-GR is free to correct me if I am wrong in this assessment).
        4. I designed these market lists so that they could be transcluded in a way that we could have both a statewide list and market area lists with no redundancy, as all information could be in the market area lists but could appear identically in a statewide list. This is what this list and this list was supposed to be, but now that most of the market lists were PRODded and not restored, they are somewhat screwed up. (An existing mainspace list which builds a larger list by transcluding several smaller lists is List of DirecTV channels, so there is some precedent for doing this kind of transclusion).
        5. There has never been any consensus to eliminate market area lists, JPG-GR did this on his own with no real discussion. (There was discussion about consolidating existing statewide lists and using sortable tables, but the issue of market area was never really resolved, JPG-GR just continued to insist that organizing by market area is impossible, despite that fact that this is exactly what many reliable sources do.) Besides the California market lists, there were other lists based on market areas such as List of radio stations in Chicago by name, List of radio stations in Las Vegas, and List of radio stations in Arizona by market area, before JPG-GR redirected them all in October.
        6. Even if merging were the demonstrably correct thing to do, how does deleting these lists without any effort to merge the information going to help this? DHowell (talk) 10:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          1. From WP:SIZE, "Two exceptions are lists, and articles summarizing certain fields."
          2. This is what scripting is for. It isn't hard.
          3. This argument has nothing to do with AfD.
          4. Currently, "Call sign", "Frequency" "City of license" "Owner", and "format" are redundant to the state article (basically, everything but "notes")...so, huh?
          5. prod represents concensus. So does AfD, that's why we're here.
          6. Exactly, I'm asking why vote "Keep" instead of "Merge" which is the direction I'm currently leaning. -Verdatum (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            1. The next two sentences in WP:SIZE are "These act as summaries and starting points for a field and in the case of some broad subjects or lists either do not have a natural division point or work better as a single article. In such cases, the article should nonetheless be kept short where possible." I claim that market area is a natural division point and wish to keep the base lists short as possible. Meanwhile, a longer statewide list can transclude many shorter lists, just as List of DirecTV channels does.
            2. I'm not saying it's hard, but will take more of my limited wiki time; time which I would rather use to find sources and update information.
            3. It does when the nominator of the AfD is the same person as the primary editor of the statewide list. (JPG-GR has shown willingness to accept changes below, but still seems to demand that any changes I make must be made to all 50 state lists within an unknown timeframe.)
            4. Transclusion would eliminate the redundancy.
            5. PROD only represents consensus when it is uncontested. I've contested the PRODs. The only reason I haven't DRV'd them is I'm waiting for the outcome of these AfD's. The relation of AfD to "consensus" is tenuous at best, and has very little relation to do what is described at WP:CONSENSUS. But that's a whole other argument which I'd rather not get into right now. It is less of a problem here now that we are having an actual discussion, though it irks me when people vote "delete" without addressing any of the arguments I made.
            6. I'm saying keep the market lists because they are smaller and would be easier to update for the average editor than the huge state lists. Most people don't contribute by dumping databases, but by contributing information about stations that they are familiar with, and people are going to be familiar with the stations in their market area, not throughout the entire state. Transclusion would give us the best of both worlds; smaller, manageable market area lists, useful for most radio listeners; and a larger statewide list for whatever purpose they serve. DHowell (talk) 19:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't own these lists, so any modifications you'd like to do are fine. HOWEVER, it seems ridiculous to add a market column to this already screen-wide list if California is the -only- station you intend to do that, too. The whole point to the new lists was a uniformity. JPG-GR (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I still have to start somewhere. I happen to live in California, have lived in both the Northern and Southern areas of the state, so I am familiar with many of these stations. But I have no objection to working on the other states, it's just that I don't have as much time to work on this as others may have, so it is a little unreasonable to tell me I can make changes, but only if I am willing to personally do it to 50 lists containing a total of some 10,000(?) radio stations. The whole point of the wiki process is for different editors to be able to make incremental changes leading to a useful reference work. For me, uniformity is not as important as the preservation of information, and your enforcement of uniformity led to a net LOSS of information—owner, format, branding, and market area—information which was wiped out in your quest to standardize the lists (sure, people are slowly restoring owner and format information, but this work proceeds at a slow and sporadic pace, just like my own work on the market lists). Making me responsible to ensure that all 50 lists uniform (an unimportant goal to me; secondary to the addition and preservation of information, and secondary to making it easier for others to contribute information) is no different than to make you responsible for filling out the owner and format fields and restoring branding and market information to the state lists (information that is important to me, but clearly not as important to you). There is no deadline, so we have plenty of time to make things uniform after all the information is complete.
          • Now the most sensible way for me to work on this information is by market area; forcing me to work within the confines of the current state list, which I currently find unwieldly, is essentially a rejection my voluntary contributions. My time is limited as it is. My intentions were to complete the various market lists, using the sources I noted above; then to match the resulting list up with the FCC database list, resolving any conflicts, and finally replacing the existing statewide list with one which transcludes the market lists, ensuring no information was lost in the process. Once done with that, I would proceed to another state. Now at the rate I am doing this, it might take me years to complete all 50 states, but again, there is no deadline, so please stop enforcing one on me. DHowell (talk) 18:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • "uniformity is not as important as the preservation of information" - perhaps, but uniformity is more important than the preservation of information that was largely found to be out of date, unsourced, and just plain wrong. I still argue that a market column is wholly unnecessary, as each station included in a specific market should include a transcluded version of the appropriate market template. These market-specific lists are just another redundancy that requires updating when something changes. Wholly unnecessary. JPG-GR (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Actually, editing policy says otherwise—even information that is "out of date, unsourced, and just plain wrong" is to be corrected, or tagged with {{fact}}, not removed, unless it is about a living person. Your argument that a market column would be unnecessary because the information is in the station articles would apply equally as well to the frequency, city of license, owner, and format columns, since all of this information should also be in the station articles. (of course then we would be reduced to a list of call signs, which would be redundant to a category). I don't understand why you think where the station is heard is not as fundamentally important to a radio station as where it is located on the dial, what kind of programming it has or who owns it. Actually I didn't even really want a market column, as I my intent was to have a single statewide complete list, and a statewide list by separated by market area, both transcluding the market lists; I've explained in my reply to Verdatum above how transclusion could eliminate the redundancy between market lists and state lists; and I believe redundancy with the market templates would be a good thing as I have been getting the market information from reliable sources and so it would provide an easy way to check the templates, which are unsourced by design, against a sourced list; exactly as described in WP:CLS. But if these market lists are deleted, adding a market column to the statewide list is the only alternative. DHowell (talk) 03:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Thank you for assisting me in proving my point - "where the station is heard" is not the same as the market it is in according to you. For instance, take my local clear channel station WJR, which can be heard throughout the majority of three different states. It's licensed to Detroit, Michigan and that information is already found in the List of radio station in Michigan. The designated market for the station is redundant and unnecessary. Moreover, WJR ranks highly in numerous markets, including Toledo, which isn't even in Michigan. Saying it's in the Detroit market is very concise and lacking in the grand scheme of things. JPG-GR (talk) 07:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Wow, good job at focusing on an unfortunate choice of words and ignoring all my other points. You're right that "where the station is heard" is not technically the same as its primary market; perhaps I should have said "where the station is primarily heard" or "listened to", or "where the primary target audience for the station is". The 1% or so of radio stations which are clear channel AM stations (and there is a list of those in the article) are a notable exception to the general rule that most radio stations are typically listened to in one primary market and a few surrounding markets; and even the clear channel stations recognize a primary market that they serve—I'd bet that WJR has far more advertisements for local businesses in the Detroit area than it does for local businesses in Toledo (if they even have any); and I notice it carries coverage of Detroit sports teams. If Toledo is so important to WJR why isn't it mentioned anywhere in the WJR article, and why was its slogan once "WJR Radio 76 Cares About Detroit" and not "WJR Radio 76 Cares About Michigan, Ohio, most of Indiana, parts of Pennsylvania, and the Buffalo, New York area"? Ok, its city of license is Detroit, so this doesn't necessarily prove anything. But let's go up the dial to WCHB. Its city of license is Taylor, Michigan but just try to find out that fact on their own website. No mention of "Taylor", but 100 mentions of "Detroit". No mention of Toledo", either, even though they have the same power in the daytime as WJR, and is closer to Toledo, so must certainly be audible there. WCHB clearly cares more about its primary market (Detroit) than it does about its city of license or other markets in its listenable range. If "market area" is such a useless concept as you seem to think, why shouldn't we delete the market navigational templates as well and replace them with state templates? And why do industry sources such as Arbitron and Inside Radio even bother with the concept? And why does a station like KQJK say "Sacramento, CA" on their website when they are licensed to Roseville, California? DHowell (talk) 03:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Speaking of unsourced and wrong information, what made you think that KABC (AM), KGO (AM) and KLOS are owned by Clear Channel Communications? DHowell (talk) 03:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a directory, and this is covered in the list for the state. Edison (talk) 20:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where is market area information currently covered in the list for the state? And how does "Wikipedia is not a directory" apply to the market area lists and not to the statewide lists or the callsign lists? DHowell (talk) 10:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Owner and format information from this list has now been used to fill in appropriate blank cells in List of radio stations in California. JPG-GR (talk) 19:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of radio stations in California per JPG-GR's comment and per my discussion above. -Verdatum (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of radio stations in California per JPG-GR. - Dravecky (talk) 04:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The state list is just fine. There is already a market area nav box so we don't need a list, category and nav box. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The Sacramento, California article links to this list in its Media section. Would it be acceptable to refactor this list into a Media of Sacramento or List of Sacramento media article, which would comprise the television station and newspaper lists from the current city article along with the radio stations? There is precedent for this: see List of media in Cumberland, MD-WV, Media of Fort Wayne, Indiana, Media of Nashville, List of media outlets in Quincy, Illinois, List of Salt Lake City media, and Media of Toledo, Ohio. DHowell (talk) 05:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —DHowell (talk) 05:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —DHowell (talk) 05:49, 12 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 consensus and per rewritten article by Moonriddengirl. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Sassy

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

Text of the article is advertising; a complete rewrite would be required to make the article encyclopedic. Appears to be an adult entertainer, and does not meet notability requirements for adult entertainers. Leoniceno (talk) 07:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Although many of the nom's concerns are cleanup issues, it still fails the notability test and does not cite references, only link is to her own website. Beeblbrox (talk) 08:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. She's mostly known as a DJ, and there is ample assertation of notability in the article. This is a cleanup issue, not a deletion issue. PC78 (talk) 12:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup The regular international DJing is equivalent to the international touring part of WP:MUSIC. DJs don't tend to tour in the same way bands do, it's generally one off gigs here and there. Residency at Ibiza club confirmed here, there's plenty more coverage in "The Sun/Scum", and doubtless there's ample coverage in more specialist music magazines. She's played with Eminem and 50 Cent on global tours according to this, which I've no doubt can be sourced slightly more reliably. One Night In Hackney303 16:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nonstop promotional advertisement, full of claims of "one of the sexiest women in the world" etc. The link to the Sun aricle doesn't work when it does work, is just promotional fluff. The "femalefirst" link talks about her but what is it? The online version of some print media, or someone's fanblog? We need to know that the refs count as reliable sources. If kept it would need references and basically a complete rewrite to remove the blathery promotional POV tone. Failing that it would have to be stubbed to referenced facts. The chatty article does not even give her actual name. Edison (talk) 20:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ——Torc. (Talk.) 01:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - spam, could nearly have been speedied. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It certainly is spam. I'm going to have a go at it and see if I can strip it to something usable given the sources located by User:One Night In Hackney. If it doesn't disappear before I'm finished, I'll weigh in with my opinion on its salvageability then. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. At this point, I have no doubt that this woman meets our notability guidelines however spammy the last incarnation of her article may have been. (And no wonder, since it was a straight up a copyvio from her website; wouldn't have been speediable as spam or copyvio, though, as its history has not always been problematic with these regards) I hope the closing admin will take note that I have rewritten it entirely (adding bolding), so concerns about promotion expressed do not apply to the article in its current form. :) I will probably poke a bit more to see what else I can come up with. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:42, 13 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, though article needs improvement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leading Edge Group

edit
Leading Edge Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Rrticle fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Leading Edge Group‎. Seems to be nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 06:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm trying to make sense of your criteria here, I just wanted to expand on the electronics group entry which is part of a larger being. As for the SPA account, yes it is a new account but I have edited a number of pages previously.Yogorilla (talk) 06:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, meant to say I have edited before I opened this account, not trying to jerk you around, just trying to make a useful contributionYogorilla (talk) 06:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have added some references to the formation of Leading Edge Electronics and the circumstances surrounding that, I have numerous other references for the Leading Edge Group page which I will add shortly, I hope this goes some way to satisfying your corporate notability requirements.Yogorilla (talk) 11:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wikipedia has an established basis for inclusion. Any article must pass the notability guideline. Remember the barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the company notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered.--Hu12 (talk) 11:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, you've probably already seen the references added, now I just have to re-read the guidelines as to primary and secondary sources and see where that leaves me. :) I am somewhat confused by the apparent acceptance of articles such as Jaycar and Redback Audio which do not seem to offer a higher level of established notability (please correct me if I am wrong) Thanks. Yogorilla (talk) 11:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That may or may not be, however WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and the status of articles on other similar topics has no bearing on this particular article.--Hu12 (talk) 12:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roger that, I was not trying to use those sites as sole jsutification, just trying to find out where the 'line' is that marks notability. I have referenced articles in major newspapers and established industry journals about signifigcant events in the market landscapes and the role of the company. From my reading of the definition these constitute more than trivial or incidental coverage. Is this correct? This whole process started when I found the Leading Edge Electronics page and, as requested by the tags therein, tried to expand it and include information on the parentLeading Edge Group in a factual manner.211.30.87.196 (talk) 13:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leading Edge Electronics content moved into Leading Edge Group as suggestedYogorilla (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stamp a redirect to Leading Edge Group, and remove Leading Edge Electronics from this discussion. This way the focus is singular.--Hu12 (talk) 23:20, 5 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. faithless (speak) 06:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am Trap:Thug Motivation 103

edit
I am Trap:Thug Motivation 103 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Purported next album of rapper Young Jeezy. I was doing newpage patrol when this was created, and after running a quick search and looking over the material available, I redirected it to the artist's article citing a lack of verifiability in my edit summary. With the exception of some unique IP edits to the redirect, that stood until today, when the redirect was undone by another IP.

I went ahead and ran a fuller web and news search for any indication that this was actually coming out but came up with nothing (save a humorous line in this review of Inspiration: Thug Motivation 102 hoping that the tagline for Motivation 103 is "I Can't Fucking Miss"), which means the article fails WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL. Given that my unilateral redirect was undone once already, rather than force the point I am nominating it here for discussion. jonny-mt 05:39, 5 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.

Clement Biddle

edit

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closing) - Milk's Favorite Cookie 20:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not enough verifiable data to justify an article Oo7565 (talk) 05:24, 5 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 Gangsta rap. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mafioso rap

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

Contested Prod. As stated in my initial Prod notice, there are no reliable sources present in this article. Additionally, neither do there seem to be any available reliable sources which use this term consistently. It therefore seems to be close to Original Research on the part of its editors. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hits are a very rough measure of how useful an article is to the general public. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 23:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete made up. No reliable sources to back it up anyhow Doc StrangeTelepathic MessagesStrange Frequencies 17:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Please do not make wild accusations that I acted in poor faith by making this article. Tlogmer has already pointed out that it has use outside Wikipedia and was obviously not made up. Tuf-Kat (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty then. Due to the fact it does have use outside of Wikipedia and therefore is not made up, I'm changing my vote, to Redirect to gangsta rap, as there still aren't any reliable sources. Doc StrangeTelepathic MessagesStrange Frequencies 15:21, 8 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 Dustitalk to me 18:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Argo Aadli

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

Not enough verifiable data to justify an article also article is unsouced he seems to be a small role actor cant find a lot on him. Oo7565 (talk) 05:02, 5 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 Nomination Withdrawn per [29]. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 21:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixer-Upper

edit
Fixer-Upper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod removed by DGG as "well known concept,can easily be expanded" however it's a dicdef that already exists at Wiktionary. Both the source and the article refer to it as a 'term', which I agree with. I just don't see the potential for encyclopedic expansion so I'm bringing it here. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 03:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn, see below TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 21:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There are entire books about investing in fixer-uppers [30], so there must be something more to say about the topic. We'd have to make sure the article doesn't turn into a pure how-to guide, of course, but the potential for a good article is there. Zagalejo^^^ 04:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Good stub for an article, with all sorts of possibilities for expansion. The term has been in use since the 1940s in the real estate business, and the name seems to have been inspired by the 1935 Laurel & Hardy film, and the concept has been examined in fiction, such as in the film "The Money Pit". With the expansion of home improvement and "flipping" a house, one could say that there has been a growth in the fixer-upper industry. Since there are so many ways to fix up a house, I don't think it could ever become a how-to article. Mandsford (talk) 04:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. It's certainly got the potential to be more than just a dictionary term. matt91486 (talk) 06:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This has potential, so it's a fixer-upper, not a tearer-downer. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question clearly this is headed toward WP:SNOW but I have a question in the interim. How does this get expanded so it's not a dicdef or a how-to? The only avenues I see for expansion are the origins of the term, which is still a dic-def or as Zagalejoo found, 'how to books', which we're all in agreement is not good. I'm really just curious what the 'keeps' feel is a manner of expansion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travellingcari (talk • contribs) 12:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:DP, Pages that can be improved should be edited or tagged, not nominated for deletion. It's marked as a stub, and a whole industry has spawned around these types of things. Yngvarr (c) 12:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment in general, agreed. I've fixed a lot of articles I've come across in the backlog but I also think not every concept needs an article, which is why I brought it here for discussion. Note also, this article had been tagged -- for 9 months. I think stub/article creators also share the responsibility for making sure there's some level of content, otherwise articles can easily be left in limbo, which benefits no one. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 16:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Given that argument, would there be a better (more fully developed) article for this information to be merged into? I looked at real estate real fast, but that's not entirely appropriate. Renovation, maybe, or real estate renovation (if it existed)... Just throwing some ideas out. I know AFD isn't the place to discuss improvements, but until there is some clear alternative, I'd have to keep with my original assessment above. Yngvarr (c) 16:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
it's a big subject, with multiple aspects. Renovation is much more general. As for stubs, the virtues of having them is that someone will improve them; even our best and longest-lived articles started out very small. We do need a way of getting back to them,and that's what the tags are for. Some devote their efforts to widening the range of coverage in WP, others to increasing quality of articles--the two approaches are complementary & one shouldn't denigrate the other approach. when we get small articles that haven't been improved in 3 or 4 years, then its time to get concerned; not 9 months--in general the problem of keeping WP up-to-date is one we will increasingly be faced with. DGG (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge could work, but I don't know where. I don't think renovation is too general, but is there something else? I agree with DGG that stubs can be beneficial, but we don't need stubs for anything. So far I've seen a lot on 'this could be improved/expanded' but there don't appear to be any sources that are not how-to/dif-def. I think there could be a sort of 'glossary' (not the right word, but I think you'd get the general idea) encompassing terms and significance, but I don't think a term has encyclopedic notability on its own. I also don't think 9 months is a bad time to do housekeeping as there is the potential to weed out a lot or fix what should be improved. At the moment, I don't see how this will be expanded, which is why I brought it here. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 17:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At this point the discussion is about improvement or any other possible future, so I'm going to take some comments to the talk page. Yngvarr (c) 20:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed and withdrawn on those grounds. I'm still not entirely convinced of its notability but that's a better place for the discussion, since this is likely to close per WP:SNOW TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 21:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and I've added another source (one of only thousands available). The expansion areas include the potential buyers, what sorts of fixing is done, what effect real estate markets have, etc. Notability is derived from secondary sources, not our own perception of whether this is just a "glossary entry". --Dhartung | Talk 20:58, 5 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. faithless (speak) 06:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin freeman

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

Subject does not appear to pass WP:BIO. His most notable accomplishment doesn't appear to have made much of an impression [31], [32], despite the article's claim that it reached #28 on the ARIA Charts. No evidence that this person has received enough independent, reliable coverage to sustain an article. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article fails to establish notability.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 04:58, 5 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, only author requested deletion. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copper Telluride

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

per WP:NOR, and this is definitely original research flaminglawyerc 03:23, 5 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. faithless (speak) 06:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nebraska Cornhuskers Baseball Players

edit
Nebraska Cornhuskers Baseball Players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A list posing as an article, and not a useful list at that. Anyone who played only for the Cornhuskers is probably going to fail WP:ATHLETE; those that did become notable (e.g. by going on to play professionally) can be categorized in Category:Nebraska Cornhuskers baseball players. Jfire (talk) 02:46, 5 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 and cleanup. While not everyone explicitly mentioned cleanup in their statements, it certainly seems to be implied in most. Non-admin closure. Hersfold (t/a/c) 15:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gun safety

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

Wikipedia is NOT a how to guide. This article is simply an article on how to "safely store a firearm, load a firearm, protective gear", etc. Ideally this could be transwikified to another wiki, maybe somewhere in en.wikibooks. However wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Mønobi 02:39, 5 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. There is clear consensus that this article belongs on Wikipedia in some form or another, either as is or as a merge/redirect to Spotsylvania County Public Schools. Since there is no consensus to delete, the conversation about the proper ___location may take place elsewhere per Help:Merge. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Post Oak Middle School

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

Posting on afd for discussion, original prod reason was "reason nn middle school" (exact words), quick Google search indicates that it may have some notability. Listing for discussion. Vivio TestarossaTalk Who 02:21, 5 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 Nomination withdrawn --JForget 23:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bistro Moncur

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

This reads like spam to me, but it claims to be twice a "Restaurant & Catering Association Awards for Excellence Winner" and twice "Awarded Two Chef's Hats" by the Sydney Morning Herald Good Food Guide. I'm not convinced this makes it notable. Grahame (talk) 01:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn, I accept this has some notability.--Grahame (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think they would when it comes to food - they emphatically meet the criteria reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy at least to the same extent as newspapers on these sort of topics - ie food, restaurants, ... . If I look for restaurant reviews in Australia both Mietta's and Gourmet Traveller would be up there with the Sydney Morning Herald reputation wise. Perhaps you can clarify how you think these do not meet WP:RS for this topic so we don't talk at cross purposes--Matilda talk 04:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it is not a question of "clean up", it is a question whether any restaurant who gets at least 2 chef's hats (out of 5?) in a newspaper's guide if notable enough to have an article. That could amount to hundreds of thousands world wide.--Grahame (talk) 06:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC) Wikiepdia is not an indiscriminate directory, just selling good meals expensively is not notable. A restaurant would have to have something else to be notable, where a significant menu item was invented or a significant meeting occured, for instance. Gus's is just marginally notable for introducing outdoor pavement cafes to Canberra, but not for its food.--Grahame (talk) 06:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - point of clarification; "chef's hats" for both Sydney Morning Herald and The Age Good Food Guides are highly prized and judged annually. Refer for example to 2007 Sydney winners here [39] - seven Sydney restaurants were awarded three hats (highest) and 14 (including Bistro Moncur) received two hats. So on that basis (and both Sydney and Melbourne Good Food Guides are well credentialled) Bistro Moncur would be rated among the top 20 or so Sydney restaurants - for what that's worth. Murtoa (talk) 10:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
... but the article was only created on 4th March!? Murtoa (talk) 10:41, 5 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 00:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mercy (beverage)

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

Contested prod. Product does not assert notability. Cursory search of google brings up just one hit, for the same website linked to from the article. Roleplayer (talk) 01:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 05:01, 5 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. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sleaze rock

edit
Sleaze rock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
List of sleaze rock bands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

All the article is based on one SPS, seems like a neologism and not an established genre that can be secondary sourced. Note you can create lots of genre names by adding an adjective before the word rock but they aren't all notable neonwhite user page talk 01:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

60 thousand google hits is an awful lot for a genre that "doesn't exist". I take it you're a musicology professor or some other type of expert on the subject? Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 18:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hits on a search engine is not how notability is determined see WP:N. The noun 'rock' appears alongside the adjective 'sleaze' does not indicate that a notable genre exists. For example if you search for 'crazy rock' or 'bad rock' you get millions of hits each but neither is a genre. It requires second party sourcing which is yet to appear. --neonwhite user page talk 01:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you read through the google hits, people are clearly using the phrase to delineate a genre, not just to describe. Moreover, the article mentions that the genre is mostly focused in europe, so english-language hits might now show up. Sure enough, if you check the left column, you'll find that the article exists in several other languages -- including these very long articles in the finland and italy wikipedias -- [40] [41]. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 20:13, 6 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, everybody seems to be on the same page.--JForget 02:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lena Yada

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

Was Proded, but the tag was removed by author. From WP:PW, consensus was reached to not create the article due to it failing notability, currently the article has few third party sources one majorly being a myspace page. TrUCo-X 00:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While that makes her notable within WWE, but she has only been there for about a month or two, she hasn't done anything major in her tenure in WWE up to date, wow she was a contestant in the diva search and now she is doing nothing but being in the corners of other divas for the past month, great info for a whole article. Eve however has been training in FCW and has won the diva search.--TrUCo-X 01:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it was only the WWE, no. Add coverage from sources independent of the WWE, notable. Gimmetrow 01:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is sufficiently sourced and I believe she passes WP:N (especially being on TV every week and being seen by millions of people). TJ Spyke 01:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC) Comment moved after being placed between another comment and reply [46] Gimmetrow 01:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]
  • Eve's done the same amount even less, they're both interviewers, so what if she won the search. winning the search does not make you more important i.e., christy hemme. eve has trained in ovw, lena in fcw, neither has wrestled on tv yet. they both have the same amount of deserving. BlackFrostFan (talk) 01:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The thing is Torres is more notable, while Yada is Not notable, honestly, look at Yada's article, it is too short and there is not that much info or good sourcing. If you wait about another half a year, then mayby we can add her, but now she is not worth of an article.--TrUCo-X 01:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's why i said i'd get better sourcing and find more info. just give the article a chance. what's the difference if it's started 6 months from now?BlackFrostFan (talk) 01:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Big difference, please read WP:N and WP:NN on why this article should be deleted.TrUCo-X 01:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
She passes notability she's on tv every week on a national world wide show. BlackFrostFan (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a similar situation with Colin Delaney. He just randomly popped into the WWE as a jobber, and now is involved in a feud. Lena didn't just pop in, as she was part of a diva-seach. People know her before she signed a contract. She is also involved in a small feud with Leyla against Kelly Kelly. If you feel Lena is NN, then Colin is definitely NN. iMatthew 2008 01:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Correct. Merely having the images on a myspace page does not mean they are released under a "free" license. She could be using images she owns (or has authorisation to use) without any intention of releasing them for free. Gimmetrow 03:18, 5 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. Consensus is that this information is better served as a category, which already exists. I have included the category in the "see also" section of Sheet music. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of sheet music publishers

edit
List of sheet music publishers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Huge indiscriminate list of almost completely red wikilinks. Not useful as an encyclopedia article, most redlinks seem not notable enough to deserve their own articles. Those few valid wikilinks can easily be served by a category, rather than a list. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:27, 5 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 Mea Culpa. Term is already defined at Wiktionary, so no further transwiki is necessary. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My bad (expression)

edit
My bad (expression) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a dictionary A proposed deletion was requested. An AfD was recommended to discuss the phrase's relation to mea culpa. --Wolfer68 (talk) 00:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)


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

The result was Snow ball Delete--JForget 02:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomi Deutch

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

Delete, I do not see any suffucuent reasons to claim notability. Student scholarships are not the reasons to include into wikipedia. Also the article appears to be a an autobiography Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:16, 5 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 00:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Gandt

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

American animator and illustrator. Authorship by user:Nfg801 hints at autobio. Is he notable? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 00:10, 5 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 (default keep). Also renamed article as Combining Cyrillic Millions. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

҉

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

Article about a unicode character. Taking away the "supposed" backwards text effect (which I know of, but it isn't, and is unlikely to be, cited), there's nothing that distinguishes it from any other unicode character Will (talk) 13:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Should the article be kept, and it probably shouldn't, it needs to be moved to a different title. This is a combining character, and is never meant to stand on its own. --Ptcamn (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This symbol is of genuine notability as it is part of the unicode set and has unique - if strange - functionality. That the article doesn't have good referencing is not a reason to delete it but rather to improve it. I have had occasion to wonder what on earth that symbol is and WP is the best ___location to find the answer. Witty Lama 15:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment does this character have an actual "name" I can't even get to this article in firefox and regardless of the outcome of this AfD it would probably be a good idea to make a redirect to this article with an english (or other latin alphabet-based) name.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_March_5&oldid=1081073135"