< January 31	February 2 >

Guide to deletion

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no valid assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel J. Torres[edit]

Some claim to notability, but it only seems to be local notability. A borderline case maybe. Pollytyred (talk) 16:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No reasons for deletion given. ➔ REDVEЯS has changed his plea to guilty 11:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep- bad faith nomination by User:Tinucherian. details are here.

The result was No reasons for deletion given. ➔ REDVEЯS has changed his plea to guilty 11:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep- bad faith nomination by User:Tinucherian. details are here. --Avinesh Jose T 10:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp×g 22:51, 17 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)===Kyle Smith (Pro Gamer)===[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

User Kairusumisu put up his personal profile and the entry is not worthy of addition

Executive decision to speedy this, which is clearly non-notabvle bio. DJ Clayworth (talk) 03:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep (closed by non-admin). RMHED (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benedictine (condiment)[edit]

Delete-Not Notable--DatDoo (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Completing malformed and incomplete nomination from another editor. Redfarmer (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, valid stub. Multiple G-hits establish coverage. In the process of adding references now. Redfarmer (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a valid stub, as Redfarmer says, and I just gave it a much better reference. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 00:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a recipe published in a newspaper is not enough for notability.DGG (talk) 02:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you read the references? The recipe is an external link to the Washington Post-which does not establish notability in itself but does establish coverage outside the Louisville area. The reference is to an encyclopedia of Louisville history and there's more references where that came from, do a Gsearch. Redfarmer (talk) 02:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it is a valid stub as well. Having lived in Louisville I can vouch that it is quite common there (can be purchased in any grocery store). Biomedeng (talk) 03:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Looks OK to me, would be better with more citations and expansion.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It exists, it's well known in at least one place, why shouldn't WP have an entry for it? -- Zsero (talk) 01:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable and verifiable per Redfarmer. --Beloved Freak 12:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. Everyking (talk) 05:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If I voted for this to go, on the grounds that it's only notable in one place, then I'd have to get rid of Henderson's Relish. And that's not on! On a more serious note, passes notability criteria, so deserves to remain. gb ^{(t, c)} 19:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete per WP:SNOWBALL

List of dog nicknames[edit]

An indescriminate, POV and unencyclopedic list Pollytyred (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Hmm...then I should add the 200 nicknames I have for my dog... Soxred93 | talk count bot 23:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, too indiscriminate, clearly not an attempt at a serious article. hateless 00:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just OR, personal opinion, etc. Jmlk 1 7 00:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comments above. I'd almost say it's vandalism and WP:POINT considering the last one: Wikipedia--named for the popular web-based informational tool that is carefully edited by self-appointed experts Redfarmer (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as indiscriminate nonsense. Agree user likely isn't here to contribute meaningfully.--PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 13:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In lieu of flowers[edit]

Non-notable phrase, fails WP:NOT#DICT. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Redfarmer (talk) 23:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Why are we defining half a sentence? "In lieu of flowers" never appears on its own - something is to be given or done in lieu of the flowers. Why not any arbitrary sentence? It seems logical to assume the author doesn't know what "lieu" means and the article attempts to define it partly in context. That's (a) an odd thing to do, and (b) what a dictionary is for. Ros0709 (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's either a dictionary entry or a how-to, but either way it doesn't belong. --Orlady (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Delete per nom. This looks to me like a copy of something concocted by a florists' organization: "The family may say that they don't want flowers, but hey! send some anyway." Deor (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; has been speedied twice as promotional. KurtRaschke (talk) 05:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per nom. Looks like original research. --Beloved Freak 12:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR and WP:NOT#DICT and is vanispamcruftisement Doc Strange (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirect to Charlatan. Tikiwont (talk) 09:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mountebank[edit]

~~Non-notable neologism.~~ This article was originally a redirect to Charlatan, but it has been recently edited to illustrate "the richness of language," except that there is not much of a distinction between the two terms, nor is there an indication of notability for this term. Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 23:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neologism??? 1577 is hardly "recent". That said, it's essentially a synonym, so it should redirect. - Revolving Bugbear 23:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Bug.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Bug. The word remains bolded in charlatan per WP:MOS recommendations. But please don't abuse the word "neologism"; it doesn't mean slang. --Dhartung | Talk 06:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If montebank is a neologism, then this William Shakespeare chap is a johnny-come-lately who may have some promise but has yet to demonstrate his lasting notability. Dates from the 1570s. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment should Charlatan not redirect to Quackery? --Paularblaster (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The term "charlatan" is not limited only to medical practice -- it's used to refer to confidence men more broadly, particularly self-styled occultists. - Revolving Bugbear 21:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Whpq (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep; nomination withdrawn.--Kubigula (talk) 23:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Microtech Knives[edit]

Article tone and content is largely approbatory (i.e. written as an advertisement). No real claimed notability (possible speedy?) and no significant third party sources (only local office of economic development to support employees – even there, article and source have opposing numbers). Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 23:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn - Although still slightly approbatory, concerns warranting deletion have been addressed. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 13:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy G11. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to put the search term in quotes (i.e. "Microtech Knives"), like this. 7 hits, none of which "address the subject directly in detail" (the WP:N significant coverage requirement). Further this does not address the G11 issue. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 15:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - G11 is gibberish. This is the English Wikipedia. And my search is just fine, turning up evidence of notability like "For the past 10 years, Micro Tech has set the industry standard for quality and ... One of the most impressive aspects of Tichbourne's custom knives are the...". Colonel Warden (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your quote just happens to be on a web page quoting an advertisement for Microtech. It isn't an outside opinion about Microtech. But yes, it demonstrates that your search included some articles on Microtech knives. —X S G 23:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is pure spam. Ros0709 (talk) 13:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article isn't overtly spammy, but it does read like a marketing brochure, there are no other articles in Wikipedia linking to this article, and there aren't enough news articles mentioning Mircrotech knives to make the company notable enough for WP:CORP. —X S G 23:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The company is notable and well known in the Law enforcement and Outdoor sportsmen arenas. You can find articles about the company's knifes in such magazines as American Sportsman, Outdoor Sportsman and other such type publication, which are not included in Google News archives, but are read by hundred of thousands of individuals. Shoessss | Chat 14:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While the article really needs to be cleaned up so as to not read like an advertisement (topics include company's creation and founding, items manufactured without such overt trumpeting, legal issues), I think the company is still notable, just like Gerber Legendary Blades, which is another well known knife and tool maker. Mind, in pop culture, Microtech is more infamous in some regards. For instance, in 24 (TV series) (first season), the protagonist (a federal agent) encounters a man who had concealed a Microtech switchblade in his car. He disarms him, and recognizes both the make and model of the knife ("Microtech H.A.L.O. II"), and notes how suspicious it is that a corporate bloke would have such an expensive knife that is primarily designed for killing.Legitimus (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article could be cleaned up and helped, I'll even work on it, myself to improve it.--Mike Searson (talk) 19:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your edits have greatly improved the article. I’m still concerned, however, that the article still doesn’t assert importance (which is distinct from notability) per CSD A7. Consulting with other knife makers and a mention on 24 seem to be the closest assertions, but still fall short of the “importance or significance” threshold. Did any of their designs influence the industry? Do their sales/revenues establish them as a significant player in the industry? We know that they market themselves as “high end”, but is that how the industry perceives them? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Speaking as a knife collector, MT is an important company. They literally changed the perception of the "Automatic knife" from a cheap imported weapon of gang members, etc to a precision piece of equipment used by the military, etc. Marifone's background was working for Reed Knight as a weapon designer (firearms) and based on his ability to use a CNC machine became a knifemaker overnight (some of his original designs are worth thousands). The company is currently putting most of its attention on a firearm project, so this may come under the attention of Wikiproject Firearms. Yes, I'm looking for some older articles that detail how close their maching tolerances are 10 thousandths of an inch...so they do have manufacturing standards set very high. All that being said, the company is not without its controversies, (for example selling "rare models" for up to $1,000 and then a year later releasing them priced in the low hundreds) I'm personally not a huge fan, but they do have their place in the tactical knife industry.--Mike Searson (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ha, sounds like Apple Inc. of the knife world (but that's another discussion). Ultimately, the AfD is about the article, not the topic. The topic certainly seems significant/notable, so if you could find a reference to the “transformation of opinions”, the article would follow suit. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep — SpikeToronto (talk) 02:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley West[edit]

Comment: Completing an incomplete nomination here. ~~User did not leave a reason for deletion. Have proded them on their talk page to come back and give a reason.~~ Although I initially thought this should be deleted, I am remaining neutral at this time. Redfarmer (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User has now provided a reason. Redfarmer (talk) 23:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The list of exhibitions seems to satisfy WP:BIO#Creative professionals. Ros0709 (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Not convinced that he meets WP:BIO - he's not known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. He hasn't created a significant or well-known work, and his work hasn't either become a significant monument, been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, and is not represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries, museums or internationally significant libraries - at least as far as the article and his own website are concerned. He's had several solo exhibitions, sure, but that's not a huge thing (I've had four myself), and of the group shows only the RCofA one is that notable - and even then we don't know how big his role in it was. BTW, if kept, it will need serious copyediting - quite a bit of it seems to be a copyvio from here. Bonus points from me for being another artist with a Barnet connection, but that's not going to sway anyone else from their keep/delete opinions :) Grutness...wha? 00:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Already nominated previous day, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_February_1. No opinion on notability per WP:BIO. Barno (talk) 00:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see it's the same discussion, just transcluded onto both the 1-Feb and 2-Feb AFD pages. Barno (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Firstly, if the wikiauthor could cite articles/journals/books that have referred to the artist’s work, would that be sufficient to satisfy the requirements under WP:BIO#Creative professionals? Also, if the essential predicate for the inclusion of biographies on Wikipedia is that the subject be notable, then should we not take account of the following:

“It is not famous and it is arguably not important, but I think that no one would serious[ly] question that it is valid material for an encyclopedia. What is it that makes this encyclopedic? It is that it is information which is verifiable and which can be easily presented in an NPOV fashion.” — Jimbo Wales quoted here. [Emphasis added.]

This is an encyclopedia with unlimited space. Inclusion on Wikipedia of a small article that is factually correct and written from a neutral point of view about an artist who has had a significant number of one-man and group shows, has won awards, and has a book of his collected works available from booksellers — all of which is verifiable via a Google UK search — surely does not run contrary to the intention of Wikipedia nor is not encyclopedic. Moreover, the guideline for biographic notability states that the concept of notability “is distinct from ‘fame’, ‘importance’, or ‘popularity’, although these may positively correlate with notability.” [Emphasis added.] Finally, I cannot find anything from a cursory examination of the Wikipedia official policy on biographies of living persons that automatically and clearly cries out for the exclusion of this article. — SpikeToronto (talk) 04:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP for the reasons mentioned above. DavidJJJ (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover it definitely agrees with this policy WP:BIO#Creative professionals. Wikipedia is also an encyclopedia with unlimited space therfore he is notable enough. DavidJJJ (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep this article. Chinwe Izamoje (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Neutral per above. Modernist (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. –Modernist (talk) 16:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons above, plus the article has been much improved, and so is now a lot more verifiable. (GowsiPowsi (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Delete Solid professional artist, but mostly local gallery shows do not confer notability. Johnbod (talk) 18:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP for the reasons above. Bob Garfield Hoskins (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely notable. Punk Rocker (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's painfully hard to get him to show up in Google through the thicket of other AWs, but that's sort of the point, isn't it? The best I could find were some gallery listings and (I think) one mention of him as a lecturer. Mangoe (talk) 23:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep for sure--79.66.102.246 (talk) 19:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article and references describe an artist, but fail to describe a notable person. Nothing in the article meets WP:BIO for Creative professionals. This document [1], which seems to be generated by the artist, lists no references that could establish encyclopedic notablity (a doc like this would be the best case for finding notablilty, the artist is "blowing his own horn"). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because he is notable and because now many of the sources have been cited.82.34.218.65 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I notice alot of editors (who seem to be partisan towards this artist) are making comments along the lines "if we can show reliable references that this artists exists, then he should be included in Wikipedia". This is directly in contridiction to Wikipedia is not a directory. Existance is not a criteria for being in Wikipedia, notability is. i.e. Wikipedia is not the white pages or an artist directory such as "AskArt", and therefor does not included artists just because you can prove they are an artist. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that includes people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. There are not sufficient links of second party evidence, but there is evidence of notable work. Blueswan1967 (talk) 20:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Regarding the guidelines stated in WP:BIO#Creative Professionals, I find it interesting that the application of the guidelines listed at WP:BIO#Pornographic Actors makes it easier in the Wikipedia world to forever enshrine a pornographic performer in Wikipedia, than to provide a small encyclopedic article that is factually correct and written from a neutral point of view about an artist who has had a significant number of one-man and group shows, has won awards, has a book of his collected works available from booksellers, and creates works of art of an enduring and lasting nature. For a porn performer, possessed as they are of the most fleeting of careers, all that would seem to be required is (1) a nomination for a porn award, which some would argue are handed out like candy, and (2) an independent review of his/her work, something which occurs every time a porn studio provides review copies to sellers of their product. (N.B. The other two criteria listed at WP:BIO#Pornographic Actors seem to rarely be applied, to which even a cursory review of porn performers with wikiarticles can attest.) How can the application of guidelines in WP:BIO be so lax and inclusive for one type of artist and their application be so restrictive and exclusive for another type of artist? I do not think that such a divergence in application is the intention of these guidelines. The existence of such a divergence of application would suggest that either (a) the application of the guidelines for inclusion of porn performers has to be tightened up, or (b) the application of the guidelines for the inclusion of artists has to be interpreted in a more inclusive manner. I still vote to keep the Ashley West article. — SpikeToronto (talk) 06:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please calm down! The book is self-authored and self-published, the one-man shows are pretty local, none of the group shows has an article (as an example of notability). There are no independent sources cited. Other Stuff Exists is not an argument. He falls fairly clearly into the type of artist that gets deleted here, despite being a solid professional. Let me know if you go on a porn-star deletion rampage - I may well support. Johnbod (talk) 11:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that the rules need to be applied equally, either in an inclusive manner (e.g., porn performers) or an exclusive manner (e.g., painters/artists). I like the more inclusive approach … which, of course, means I will not be going on a “porn-star deletion rampage”: It would offend my anti-censorship mentality. (Plus, I rather like being able to find info about my favorite porn performers from yesteryear!) As for the “Please clam down!” comment, I find that insulting. I wrote the comment from an intellectual perspective. You apparently read it with much more of a head of steam. Don’t hit the EDIT button with so much gusto next time and perhaps you won’t be tempted to impute an emotion to a writer of which he was not possessed. — SpikeToronto (talk) 02:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldnt we end this as it has already been five days. DavidJJJ (talk) 11:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP for reasons above. (GowsiPowsi (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
this should definately end (GowsiPowsi (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

The result was Keep Non-Admin Closure. Tiddly-Tom 06:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Garage punk[edit]

Seemingly unnotable genre that relies on a singular source. Very little information has been found on this, and I'm guessing there isn't much information out there Hoponpop69 (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Term gets a fair amount of ghits. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hits on google is not a criteria for notability, if a term has no second party reliable sources then it isn't notable. Please read WP:N fopr more info. --neonwhite user page talk 00:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it gets 719,000 hits then you're pretty much guarenteed to get at least a few reliable sources. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect, there is no such guarantee. You won't find any such policy on WP:N. We cannot assume there are sources unless they are provided. --neonwhite user page talk 00:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, since you apparently have a hard time accessing Google, I will provide them. Here's a few: (1) the Seattle Weekly, (2) Amazon, (3) The Chicago Tribune, (4) The Jackson-Clarion Ledger. How many more do you wish to see?--brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon is an online store not a verifiable publication. None of those verify anything that is written in the article. A trivial mention of the term in an article does not prove that this exists as a notable genre and gives no information that could be added to this article. Coverage needs to be 'significant' according to guidelines. --neonwhite user page talk 01:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your missing the point. The refs show that the term "Garage Punk" is widely used. Of course Amazon isn't a verifable publication, but it is a big well known company, and if they use that term ipso facto it's common term that easily suffices for Wikipedia notability. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They do not show that this is a notable term or genre. Nothing from amazon can be used as evidence of notability. Notability guidelines require significant second party articles about a subject. Extremely minor sub-genres don't usually deserve a seperate article, simply becasue there is so little written about them that the article would be a permanent stub with little point of context. It's common sense to merge them to a main genre. --neonwhite user page talk 03:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please use common sense, if the term is used all over the place, it's notable. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 10:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Garage rock. Seems to be a very minor sub genre of it. --neonwhite user page talk 00:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Don't "guess" that there's nothing out there. Look for it. I've added a couple of refs to the article, which should be sufficient.--Michig (talk) 09:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are good but the article needs to be rewritten to reflect them and not the previous OR. --neonwhite user page talk 14:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The references that Michig added to the article prove notability. Bláthnaid 12:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Established genre, well constructed article. Ros0709 (talk) 13:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, easily passes notability guidelines. --Beloved Freak 13:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has been improved significantly and this can probably be closed now per WP:SNOWBALL. --neonwhite user page talk 14:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete --Salix alba (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibility that the universe is a false vacuum[edit]

This is an essay, not an article. Has been tagged for a few months with no real improvement and the tone of the article is overly informal. Looking past all the pop science mumbo jumbo, I'm not seeing anything here worth keeping. JuJube (talk) 23:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blatant original research. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 23:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Sting au Buzz Me... 00:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic, blatantly original research. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 03:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research. 13:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ros0709 (talk • contribs)
Comment I don't understand why you're calling it "original research". It seems to be based on a (previously published) magazine article and on a (not-yet-published?) scientific article. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as a section of False vacuum. JuJube, above, is right I think, that this article is filled with pop science. Nor is it at all encyclopedic. The topic, though, is legitimate, and perhaps worth saving as part of False vacuum if anyone has the energy and the knowledge. I don't. Tim Ross·^talk 13:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopaedic. --Beloved Freak 14:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research essay. Wikipedia is not your personal webspace Doc Strange (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete per CSD#A7 & WP:SNOW --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The cab (band)[edit]

Non-notable band, fails WP:BAND. Assertion of importance seems to be that they've previously released a non-notable EP and they're "planning" on releasing their debut album in April. Not enough to establish notability in any case. Redfarmer (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brewcrewer (talk • contribs) 22:56, 1 February 2008
Speedy delete as WP:CSD#A7. I would not consider the issueing of an EP notable. Tivedshambo (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:MUSIC Macy's 123 ^{(review me)} 23:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caesar Barber[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Bad references, probably non-notable, written like a story Lumberjake (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Fast food. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete got public attention at the time but no lasting significance. At most, it is worth a brief mention in fast food. Capitalistroadster (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, certainly verifiable [2][3]. But I suggest this isn't really a biography, and should be merged somewhere or deleted. WP:BLP1E applies.--Doc^g 22:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if he was in a movie, this article does not prove his notability or contain anything encyclopedic. --DerRichter (talk) 23:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Reliable sources covering him in a substantial way is notability. The modification in WP:BLP is a subjective matter--I think there is a social significance to what he did, so its not trivial. DGG (talk) 02:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It may need better sourcing, but a Lexis/Nexis news search for "Caesar Barber" and "fast food" returns 430 hits, including major newspapers in the U.S., U.K., South Africa, and Australia, plus industry and legal publications. The most recent citations are from 2007, so he continues to be notable. See for example

Sunday Express, August 12, 2007 Sunday, U.K. 1st Edition, NEWS; 42, 452 words, Diner sues for $5m. . . for finding cheese in burger, From Eric Munn IN LOS ANGELES

...2002, New Yorker Caesar Barber tried to sue McDonald's and ...

Business Day (South Africa), July 06, 2007, Business Day Edition, ECONOMY, BUSINESS & FINANCE; Pg. 20, 420 words, Believe it or not, Michel Pireupireum

...Wendy's and KFC by Caesar Barber who claimed he was obese, ...

...suffered from heart disease because the fast-food restaurants had failed to warn him of the ...

Uucp (talk) 06:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The case may arguably be notable, the individual is not and should not have a biography. If those wanting to keep it can suggest a suitable merge or a rename, fine but otherwise strong delete per WP:BLP.--Doc^g 11:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Based on numerous verifiable and reliable sources as found on Google and noted here especially the Fox News hit [4] and numerous pieces on Google News including international coverage as shown here [5], note the BBC. Shoessss | Chat 14:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge possibly into fast food. Gnews shows he is known for a single issue that didn't amount to much in the end, for better or worse. Mangoe (talk) 23:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete per CSD:A1, CSDA7, .....Keeper | 76 22:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The hide[edit]

Non-notable neoglism, fails WP:NEO and WP:NOT#DICT. Redfarmer (talk) 22:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A1. So tagged. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 22:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was SPEEDY CLOSE. Nominator, Lumberjake (talk · contribs) has since been blocked due to sockpuppetry. Other questionable AfDs and removal of numerous PRODs. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 07:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paddock Club[edit]

Non-notable. Kill it with fire. Lumberjake (talk) 22:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. A gay bar in the South open for 30 years? Oldest continually operated gay bar in NC? That is certainly notable. A piece of gay history worth preserving, I'd say. Article can be improved stylistically and by addition of more references, but don't delete it. Textorus (talk) 02:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Textorus, plenty notable. Improve through regular editing per WP:AfD. Benji boi 04:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP per Textorus. I grew up in the area and it's historic to many gay North Carolinians. I'll work on the article. --AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 04:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this[6] edit by Lumberjake. Calling it "crap" isn't really the best way to voice your opinion of an article's worth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AgnosticPreachersKid (talk • contribs) 05:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suck it SineBot.--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 05:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sourced, notable to Playboy magazine apparently. Nommed by someone with an account that is only 5 days old? *blinks* - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 04:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. User is obviously experienced although could be a new account rather than a sock, why? who knows. They also seem to have a deletionist bent but that's not always a bad thing. Using "kill with fire" on a subject about a gay bar in the south where places are often burned as hate crimes is problematic but otherwise they can weild the AfD ax like anyone else. Benjiboi 05:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I'm not aware of connotations of the term, it's simply a phrase I picked up after lurking the Internets for many a year. And as for the axe reference... clever. Lumberjake (talk) 06:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to List of Law & Order characters. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Profaci[edit]

Well, I have to confess that I created this one a couple years ago before I understood notability requirements. This was an extremely minor character during the first eight years of Law & Order. Most of his appearances were limited to a single scene with two or three sentences, usually giving information to the main characters. Fails WP:FICTION. Redfarmer (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable.--DerRichter (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to an appropriate list of minor characters from the series. Lumberjake (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to List of Law & Order characters. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Law & Order characters. --Beloved Freak 14:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Law & Order characters. This article is redundant. Blueswan1967 (talk) 20:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy Delete - Deleted as WP:CSD#G8 - Nonsense. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 01:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promblem[edit]

Non-notable protoglism. Fails WP:NEO. Redfarmer (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and even if it was, with no sources to verify that that's a real word, I doubt even Wikiticionary would want it.206.246.160.29 (talk) 21:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of WP:NOT and WP:NEO. -- Mikeblas (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Liek OMG Delete per nom. Wildthing61476 (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Apparently, it was coined on a 2001 episode of the TV show Popular several years ago. Plus, proof people planning proms pronounce prom problems "promblems" (portmanteau: prom + problems). However, the word seems to come up just as often as someone having mistyped "problems". Unless there's an indication that this rather lame creation has caught on with the prom industry as part of the jargon there, it's not an article. Mandsford (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 206.246.160.29 says it all. JohnCD (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOT. Macy's 123 ^{(review me)} 23:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense and tagged as such. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 03:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kawaii Noir[edit]

Unverifiable neologisms. Quite possibly original research. A Google search doesn't turn up any reliable sources, but only blogs, forum posts, or self-references to Wikipedia. --Farix (Talk) 21:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neoweeaboologism. JuJube (talk) 23:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 01:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per no evidence of notability, no reliable sources. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I made the article and your right, Most references are not reliable sources. I don't think this article could ever be written because there are no reliable sources. Perhaps if there are ever reliable sources on the subject, I will re-write the article. I do not want the article up any longer. --Grrrlriot (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:OR at best. WP:MADEUP at worst. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 01:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Violates WP:V for sure, most likely WP:NEO, and possibly WP:OR. J Readings (talk) 05:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy Delete. GlassCobra 06:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This A Bad Ass Nigga[edit]

Non-notable album, from non-notable artist. Album to be released in late 2009, also violated WP:CRYSTAL. Prod removed by author, bringing to AfD per procedure. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Just simply non-notable. Jmlk17 21:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy deletion does not apply to notability. See WP:CSD. Redfarmer (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Although albums by deleted artists can be safely speedy deleted and often are. tomasz. 20:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing both WP:CRYSTAL and WP:BAND. I'm the one that proded it. Redfarmer (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per (a) Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and (b) not even coming close to meeting Albums and songs notability criteria. —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 21:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL, and I don't think that this meets the notability criteria. Macy's 123 ^{(review me)} 23:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC and WP:CRYSTAL. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Crystalballing way into the future, and artist doesn't even have an article.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I vote delete but, inspired by the album title, will be setting up an alternate account User:This A Bad Ass Nigga in the near future.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 12:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't expect not to be blocked for blatantly violating WP:USERNAME if you do.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be sooooo worth it, though.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 13:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoying a plate of beans there? :) On a side note, the author blanked his page, but it was restored by another editor. Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since the editor who created the article blanked the page, can't this be closed as a G7 speedy delete? "If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request." —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 17:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amina Harris[edit]

Non-notable artist, only had one semi-hit feature single so far (which doesn't even qualify as a "hit," as it only peaked at #41). P.S. Don't believe the rumors linking her to Slick Pulla, either Tom Danson (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Classic non-notable artist page. 1,400 Yahoo hits, but not a reliable source among them. Blueboy 96 01:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She might become notable in the future, but she is not notable now. Bláthnaid 11:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no evidence of her notability provided so far. No second party proof. Blueswan1967 (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Doctorfluffy (talk) 04:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result wasSpeedily Deleted as vandalism. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 14:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur D. Cooble[edit]

Hoax, no sources, no Google hits. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cooble. fschoenm (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Kafka Liz (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is not Hoax, obscure Minister, am currently looking for references —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrPlow09 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:BALLS. Nice try, but a federal minister of education would show up on a search of biographi.ca. --Dhartung | Talk 21:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete Is not hoax, my history 12 textbooks contain a lot of information on this great man. Is not a hoax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FrEaK40 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete, that is very strange Dhartung, I am very curious to why he isnt showing up, I will look into it more —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrPlow09 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hoax. Note that the two contributors above are SPAs editing only on this and Cooble. JohnCD (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hoax, no sources. Delete. Macy's 123 ^{(review me)} 23:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment BobSmith25 (talk · contribs) has removed the AfD notice from both articles. At time of writing, they are his only edits. JuJube (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3, as blatant and obvious misinformation. Deor (talk) 00:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, G3 And it's obvious BobSmith25 is a sock of the page's creator, MrPlow09 (talk · contribs).Blueboy 96 02:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and I'm placing the tag on both articles now, also WP:SNOW.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Will make some due diligence checks, and then off it should go. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 14:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep Non-Admin Closure. Tiddly-Tom 07:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rubén Torres Llorca[edit]

This is one of a batch of articles created by a WP:SPA to populate Category:Cuban contemporary artists that they created (the subject of a WP:COI/N that resulted in a bot removing 145 WP:LINKSPAM URLs from the articles ... it lacks any WP:RS attribution to WP:Verify the WP:BIO notability criteria, and a ((Prod)) was declined, so I have opened this AfD. —The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk · contribs) 20:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Regardless of how it got here, I have found a fair amount of info on this Cuban artist, including:

http://www.miamiartexchange.com/studio_praxis/miami_art_artists/ruben_torres-llorca.html (interview)
http://www.aaa.si.edu/collections/oralhistories/transcripts/torres98.htm 1998 Interview, Smithsonian Archives of American Art
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0715/p12s01-alar.html (smaller mention, but with photo)
http://www.cubaartny.org/pages/artists/RubenTorresLlorca/work3.html
http://www.cuba-avantgarde.com/artists/torres_llorca.php (showing work only)

While I think the nominator did so in good faith, it wasn't hard to find good links on this artist and many are in English (he is Cuban, after all). ~~The fact that the article doesn't have these links is irrelevent~~ citations now added, as the standard is verifiable not verified. There has been discussion on his talk page about the AFD, and I think the nom may be too concerned about who created the article, (which was a problem) but doesn't matter if there is no copyvio and the spam was removed. The artist is notable and this can be verified, which is the standard for inclusion. The article needs improving, not deletion. Pharmboy (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: A link to a site that displays one of the artist's paintings is like an ISBN for an author's book ... it is not nearly the same thing as a review in The New York Times or some other WP:RS that demonstrates "has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." —72.75.72.63 (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I know, but there is no image of his work and not sure how fair use would apply in this particular instance. The link was provided solely to give visitors a quick link to some of his art (I did say 'showing work only'), not to establish notability. The other links establish notability fairly handily. Pharmboy (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. :-) —72.75.72.63 (talk) 03:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think these links demonstrate notability. matt91486 (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is one of the list of 145 artists that was discussed some time ago at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Ideally, people would come forward and volunteer to sift through that list to see which of the artists are notable. Since it is not easy to recruit people to do that study, these artists may wind up being presented as individual PRODs or AfDs. This man does appear notable, and his article should be kept. EdJohnston (talk) 00:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You could fit everything I know about art, Cubans and Rubén in a thimble, yet I dug up these references in about 5 minutes. These were all first page Google hits. I wish the nominators would take the 5 minutes it takes to create an AFD and instead, just google the name first, and then add a single reference if found. If they don't find anything, fine, then you can say so in the nom itself. I'm not trying to rag the nom, but every editor is obligated to research ANY article before nominating it for AFD, this is the other half of "good faith". Pharmboy (talk) 12:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
VERY STRONG KEEP.. People need to do a little research before they nominiate for AFD's. This guy is notableCallelinea (talk) 04:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I invite editors to investigate and either improve or delete the articles in this Cuban artists checklist ... if you decline or second a PROD, please update the checklist ... Happy Editing! —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) _{02:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

Keep for links posted above. Blueswan1967 (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 09:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Camera filename structure[edit]

unsourced trivia list, probably not even worth merging, but there's an open merge proposal in case anything thinks there's anything to salvage from it Dicklyon (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't really see how this can be encyclopedic and appears to be less than accurate. --neonwhite user page talk 00:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ There's a merge proposal only a few days old, please don't disrupt it. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know, it was my proposal, as a reaction to an unsuppported proposal to merge to a less appropriate place. But I haven't seen any action on it, like support, opposition, or otherwise, and I didn't see anything to merge really, so I thought a delete would be more on point, hence this AfD. Let me know if you see some reason to consider merging what's there, which looks all like trivial OR. Dicklyon (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who suggested the merge, and didn't know about the "design rule" page, but think it is a more appropriate choice. But all this was only a few days ago. There is no deadline. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Utterly trivial; incomplete; unecyclopaedic. Ros0709 (talk) 13:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found a page out there that has a lot of this information. I'll add an external link to "Design rule" and drop my objection to deleting the page. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - detailed trivia -- Whpq (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep Non-Admin Closure. Tiddly-Tom 07:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lemon chiffon (color)[edit]

Old stub on unsourced non-notable color name. Dicklyon (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All colors have articles, most are stubs because there's not really that much you can say about them. However, the articles do have value. 206.246.160.29 (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, there were 40,200 ghits for the phrase "Limon Chiffon color". Seems notable. Zidel333 (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - even a self confessed deletionist can't bring himself to delete a sourceable colour. Springnuts (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - perfectly legitimate color. matt91486 (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's a web color, after all... Lemon Chiffon. —X S G 23:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Punji[edit]

This character is not notable enough to justify his own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reinoe (talk • contribs) 2008/01/22 16:08:59

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-fictional character that really has no significance to the Mind of Mencia show, and does not deserve an article for itself.--TrU Co ⁹31¹ 22:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 20:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In no way does this qualify as a real article.--DerRichter (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Please take possible merge discussions to the appropriate talk pages. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jazz Fenton[edit]

Non-notable character in Danny Phantom, establishes absolutely no out-of-universe notability, has been tagged for all sorts of things since September with no improvement. Seems to be a target for trivia too.

I am also listing the following pages for the same reason:

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete given the lack of sources and Google News Archive comes with nothing. Worth a mention in the Danny Phantom article. Capitalistroadster (talk) 20:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with comment by Capitalistroadster.--DerRichter (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: the existence of the ((DPNav)) navbox, and the fact that all of these articles are listed as "Main characters", makes these as legitimate as the characters from any other popular cartoon series, like Ned Flanders, Joe Swanson, or Dale Gribble. —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 21:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try, but your argument boils down to "other stuff exists". I would not be against a merger to a list of the characters, so long as the trivia is weeded out. Just being a character in a popular series doesn't warrant automatic notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Other stuff is a good argument when there is a considerable amount of relevant comparison other stuff is notable and so is this. It shows what WP practice is, and we should at least ry to be somewhat consistent To use it as a negative argument you';d have to show this is less notable than the others, or that they should all be deleted. This is a major continuing character in a reasonably important series. DGG (talk) 02:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any out of universe notability, however, and given what I know about the cartoon, I don't think that any of its characters (except the title character) would possibly have any importance out of the show's context. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is "out of universe" notability? How is it different from notability? — brighterorange (talk) 13:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My point is that with templates like ((Simpsons characters)), ((Family Guy)), and ((King of the Hill)), one cannot deny that "main characters" of some shows are worthy of their own articles, and "out of universe notability" is secondary ... as can be seen from ((DPNav)), most of the other characters are in collected articles, like List of Danny Phantom characters and List of Danny Phantom villains and ghosts ... it's individual articles like these that keep articles like List of Simpsons characters, List of Family Guy characters, and List of characters in King of the Hill from getting Too Large, and as USER:DGG pointed out, you'd be hard pressed to get rid of the articles for Waylon Smithers, Neil Goldman, or John Redcorn. —72.75.72.63 (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's because ~~those articles do~~ the Waylon article does assert out-of-universe notability in multiple reliable sources. The ones in this AfD, however, do not seem to be the subject of any out-of-universe, reliable sources, and warrant at best a one- to two-paragraph mention in List of Danny Phantom characters. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any "out-of-universe notability", or any WP:RS coverage for that matter, of either Neil Goldman or John Redcorn. —72.75.72.63 (talk) 00:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I meant to type "that article does". Anyway, just because other articles exist that don't assert notability doesn't mean that all such articles should be kept too. The Neil Goldman and John Redcorn articles aren't notable in any way and should probably be deleted or merged too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Capitalistroadster. Doctorfluffy (talk) 00:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Though just a character, there is no reason why we shouldn't keep it. Blueswan1967 (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject Addhoc (talk) 12:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Main character in a notable series, plenty of references and in this instance I believe as it is a television character then perhaps the injunction would apply. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Danny Phantom. I prefer merge. TyrannoRanger 17:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 23:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Boyfriend List[edit]

Doesn't establish notability in any way; author is a red link. (I can't resist linking to red link.) A search for sources turned up nothing of note. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesnt qualify as an article, uses no citations--DerRichter (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Author is a redlink, article itself states that the book is not even close to the best-seller list. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 23:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Does get some reviews when you search, but not sure the sites the book is reviewed on meet WP:RS.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem to be notable and there are no references. Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 03:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus to delete. Please take any merge discussion to the appropriate talk pages. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Music of Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Music of Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars

Not notable enough to have it's own article. A merge into Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars would work as well. -Karaku (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars per nom. NN on it's own Doc Strange (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close, merging is not something for AFD to be concerned with. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In pricipal, AfD can concern itself with merges, however…

Comment Actually AFDs ending in merging are quite common Doc Strange (talk) 05:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

… in practice, we've seen deletes with none of the content actually merged. Taric25 (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too short. It needs to look more like Music of Kingdom Hearts and Music of Final Fantasy VIII, if possible. The Prince (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at this edit. The article is still under construction. Also, one of the main contributors to Music of Kingdom Hearts, User:Guyinblack25 is currently working on World of Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars. Don't you think it would be a good idea to ask for his help before deleting this article? Taric25 (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is under construction, just like it says at the top of the page. “Please don't tag with a deletion tag unless the page hasn't been edited in several days.” Now, I admit, no one had edited the article in several days, true. As for myself, I had been busy with things in my real life, namely work.

Now, take a look at this edit. I'd written that a week ago, but I hadn't posted it because I was looking for audio samples. I didn't find many, so I was trying to learn how to make them on my own. I was somewhat successful, but I'm still working on it. We simply need a little bit more time to do three things.

Expand the concept and creation section and merchandise section
- This is very easy, because Yoko Shimomura got many of the concepts directly from the Mario series and Final Fantasy series, and we can simply cite the sources that state this as well as compare and contrast the works' influence, such as comparing Final Fantasy V’s “Royal Palace” (王家の宮殿, Ōke no Kyūden) that plays while in Walse Castle to “Hello, Happy Kingdom ” that plays while in the Mushroom Kingdom.
Expand the musical pieces section to include the notable musical pieces, not just one.
- This is also easy, because the music has many musical pieces that are directly from either the Mario series and Final Fantasy series. Also, a reliable souce already shows which pieces Shimomura took directly from them. We can simply expand the section with two more subsections discussing the pieces she took from the two series.
Add the audio samples
- This is an easily surmountable problem, and the problem is purely technical. I have already captured the “Underworld theme” from Super Mario Bros. directly from an NSFe dump. I have also written the image desciption page for it, complete with fair use rationale, here. I am also working on creating the other samples. Taric25 (talk) 19:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm on the fence with this one. In its current state, the article is not in that good of shape. It cites YouTube a couple times and a few less notable gaming sites, which I don't think fall under the definition of a reliable source, and is a bit sparse on the number of reliable source to assert notability. It is also missing important information on the "Creation and influence" section.
However, the article is clearly under construction with efforts made to improve it. The "Reception" section is of decent size and contains info from 1UP.com, RPGamer, RPGFan, All Game Guide, and SoundtrackCentral, all of which are considered reasonable to good realiable source by the VG Project.
Does Wikipedia, need to tighten its quality control? Yes. Do we need to rush to remove every article that is in bad shape? No. I'd say we wait a short while and see how much it can be expanded and properly sourced before a final decision of "Keep" or "Merge/Delete" is rendered. My two cents. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Merge. Not notable enough for its own article, but perfect for inclusion in the Super Mario RPG's article. Drumpler (talk) 21:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Most of the information is just superfluous info that belongs summarized in the main article or just purely trivial information from unreliable sources. It should exist within the main topic. TTN (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Too much effort has already been used to create this article. This article was created to minimized the overflowing amount of information that is on the main article Super Mario RPG. If this is merged (back) to that article, then we'd be going back to square one. Keiji Dragon (talk) 03:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time for another edit. :P Keiji Dragon (talk) 03:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People worked hard on it isn't a good reason to keep something Doc Strange (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what User:Dragon DASH means. We previously had a huge section on the soundtrack in the main article that dominated the article. We removed it, but brought it back by demand. (See Talk:Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars/Archive 1#Soundtrack relevance) What Dragon DASH means is exactly what he says following the effort statement: “This article was created to minimized the overflowing amount of information that is on the main article Super Mario RPG. If this is merged (back) to that article, then we'd be going back to square one.” Taric25 (talk) 19:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. jj137 (talk) 03:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Rawls (actor)[edit]

Nothing in the article asserts notability and admits that he is prone to small roles. A search is problematic due to a number of men with the same name but there is no evidence that he's notable as defined here. Sole "source" is a photo of his character in a movie Travellingcari (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A major role in a very minor film (a 3 minute short) and a very minor role in a major film. That's all, according to IMDb. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not-notable as an actor. Bláthnaid 12:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 13:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bornfrees[edit]

Unclear what the topic actually is, and whether it is notable. JASpencer (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject is the phrase "Bornfree" to describe a Zimbabwean or South African born after the end of white rule. Bornfrees is the title of a South African TV documentary on this subject but it is not clear if the phrase is in wide use or was coined by the documentary makers. I advised the author that the page was in danger unless it was improved a couple of weeks ago. There has not been any progress and the author has not contributed since. I can't see how we can hope to get an article out of it and I don't think the references even support a Wiktionary entry. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete Looks like this is just an ad for the documentary, there is no assertion that this term is notableBeeblbrox (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Beeblbrox. Doctorfluffy (talk) 04:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: remove all the POV and peacock wording and it's a one-sentence definition. per nom, WP:NOT#DICT --Sfmammamia (talk) 03:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep - left as an exercise for the editors if they wish to merge or rename it - Peripitus (Talk) 05:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Linux[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Criticism articles are POV pushing ground, in this case it's a soapbox for repeating Microsoft ad claims and promote fanboism criticisms. Software is not a piece of art to demand "criticism and praises" sections or separate articles, and this is also not encyclopedic information -- Linux is used by about %1 of the people and it's usually installed for free by people who want to install it, I doubt any kind of criticism of it is of encyclopedic importance -- the jury is still out for criticism of Windows because it's used by over 90% of the people and comes preinstalled on most of the computers, that by itself make is more relevant, yet, I would still suggest deleting such a criticism article about Windows and integrating stuff inside the Windows article. Back to this article, it's clearly a collection of quotes and claims from competitors, this shouldn't be allowed: Wikipedia shouldn't be a soapbox for fanboys or people who have interest to hit competitors' products. This article is of very poor quality too, and because of its POV title it's doomed to remain like this. In addition this article should have been deleted since 2005 per this decision. AdrianTM (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination seems shrill compared to the article. The article might be improved but this seems quite feasible. Here's a long list of scholarly sources to sort through. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, shrill... good enough, but look at the Wikipedia recommendation regarding "Separate articles devoted to criticism", it clearly says: "Don't make articles entirely devoted to criticism of a topic that has or should have its own Wikipedia article." Sure that's not an official policy, but I think it's a good advice. -- AdrianTM (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it's not even a guideline, it's just an editors opinion. --neonwhite user page talk 00:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - article is well sourced and therefore is notable. Could easily be a fork from the main article. This appears to be a POV motivated nomination that does not really state a valid reason for deletion --neonwhite user page talk 00:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the reasons are evident, but clearly I haven't explained right, to quote from the valid reasons listed in the link you provided:

content fork
subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline or simple not suitable for an encyclopedia (how encyclopedic is this info anyway?),
it also contains info from Microsoft campaigns against Linux which could be considered spam or at least not a reliable source.
besides, article was supposed to be deleted in 2005 per this decision, not sure why it was allowed to be created again. -- AdrianTM (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason why this can be a split from or merged in the main article (which should have been proposed long before this), it is well sourced by several verifiable sources therefore it meets notability guidelines. The issue of whether microsoft.com is a valid source is not a criteria for deletion. Articles can be recreated if deleted, this article was created over 2 years after the old one was deleted and is likely very different. An afd descision about a previous article with the same name is irrelevent to this discussion. --neonwhite user page talk 03:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually if you look at the second delete nomination one of the conclusions was to take info from this article and merge it within Linux article, this article till yesterday was only a sorry link to Linux#Criticism. I understand that some people complain that "we can't promote this on Linux page because editors from there don't accept this material" but is really an argument that stands? "We can't push the POV on main page so will put it in a secondary page that faces less scrutiny" at least this is how I see the motivation behind the existence of this page, and of course the argument "we have a criticism page about Windows we need one about Linux", how about BSD, what about OS/2? How encyclopedic are criticisms of OSes that have less than 1% of the market? Again software is not a piece of art that needs "praises and criticism" articles. -- AdrianTM (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the contester of the PROD, I obviously disagree with the deletion of this article.
To begin with, there are references (not only Microsoft; there's plenty of references from independent sources like ZNet.co.uk, Computerworld (Australia), EE Times, and Newsforge).
There are plenty of other "Criticism of __________" articles (such as:Criticism of Wikipedia, Criticism of Microsoft, and Criticism of Wal-Mart. A full list is available here). I do know that WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid reason for keeping the article, but the more important keep reason is above (reliable sources). Puchiko (Talk-email) 10:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, Criticism of Wal-Mart is a WP:Good article. Puchiko (Talk-email) 10:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and restart; viable subject, but balanced article > no article > POV articles, every time Will ^(talk) 11:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV issues are not a reason for deleting an article. --neonwhite user page talk 14:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and possibly rewrite under a different article title. Criticism of Linux notably comes from the corporate sector. Therefore the title is deeply POV. Consider that it might even more appropriately be titled "Revenue- and shareholder-value- motivated corporate campaign against the open source software community and ideal". Although that would be the opposite POV, it would still be more accurate. Microsoft's "criticism" in particular is not valid, since of course they are bashing their competition like crazy (real-world COI, so to speak). There might as well be an article or section on Microsoft's actions in that direction, like when Steve Ballmer himself flew to Munich, when the city administration considered switching to Linux. Or Microsoft's increasingly desperate attempts to secure the basis of their overrated and overblown business model. User:Dorftrottel 16:15, February 2, 2008

strong keep Yes, Microsoft fanboys will spam the hell out of it, but why do we have a "criticism of Windows X" article for each version ever, but no Criticism of Mac or Linux? It makes wikipedia look unbalanced. I mean, Windows deserves it, but if someone is like "oh, look at all this criticism, oh but its competitors don't, well this must not be a reliable source". So let's have a small criticism page just for fairness sake! Hendrixski (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a very convincing reason to keep it, NPOV doesn't span across several articles. See also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. User:Dorftrottel 23:35, February 2, 2008

Keep. Heck, we even have Criticism of Wikipedia. :-) I don't mean it as an OTHERCRAPEXISTS kind of argument, but rather that IMO there's nothing wrong with "Criticism of..." articles as long as they are written properly. --Itub (talk) 17:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WTH. Actually, you're right. Striking my delete. User:Dorftrottel 08:16, February 5, 2008
Merge to Linux#Criticism, the article is short enough to include. To leave criticisms out of the main Linux article leaves it unbalanced. --Salix alba (talk) 11:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable subject and sourced. "Criticism articles" have every right to exist.Biophys (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirect to Issaquah School District. The current articles content is a bit like an advert and all unsourced, so I will leave it to other editors to decide if to include any more detail in the district article. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newcastle Elementary School[edit]

Article fails to establish notability, is already mentioned here: [[7]], and does not cite any sources whatsoever. DerRichter (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, especially on the grounds of duplication of information Travellingcari (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete not only is all that true, it reads like a press releaseBeeblbrox (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Camaron | Chris (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Redirect to Issaquah School District. matt91486 (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Issaquah School District per guideline in proposed WP:SCL --Daddy.twins (talk) 03:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Famous last words (expression)[edit]

This article has had reference and OR issues going back several months. I've tried to work on this, but there is very little that can be traced to a reputable source and isn't OR, i.e. which to include, etc. I also think this violates WP:NOT, especially Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information Travellingcari (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was initially neutral, but it's a dicdef and a collection of quotations, much better in Wikiquote than in an encyclopedia, and it can be linked from the Famous Last Words disambig page.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --John (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has huge citation issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DerRichter (talk • contribs) 19:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are several defecation readers that contain "hilarious" quotes like the ones that were found on "Randy's home page" and recycled here; so cites could be made for this topic, but I don't think sourcing would make this encyclopedic. Surprisingly, this has been up for more than three years, from the days when Wikipedia would take almost anything. The quote from General Sedgwick in the Civil War is the only one on here that really was a person's final words. The rest of it falls under the category of short-sighted comments that proved later to be untrue. Usually, when one uses the expression "famous last words", it's an expression of doubt that someone's confident declaration will prove to be right. Anyway, a collection of debatably "funny" (some would say tired and no longer funny) stories is not the basis of an article. Mandsford (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I agree with the statements made above concerning a list of quotations, and having issues with references, I do feel this article meets Wp:Notability due to its well-established nature in literature, and history. I can do some digging for appropriate refs, but there is no deadline. Zidel333 (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a grabbag of quotes that may be better on Wikiquote. Capitalistroadster (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Give it more time to be sourced, the phrase is obviously in use. --neonwhite user page talk 00:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article explains a common Americanism that is easily misunderstood by those who are not familiar with the idiom. This is clearly the case with those who are complaining that quotes cited in the article are usually not someone's dying words. Read the article before you criticize it. "Famous Last Words" means a notably wrong statement. It has nothing to do with someone's death. The article is encyclopedic and may particularly be useful to new English speakers and non-American English speakers. However, the list of quotes should be drastically shortened or removed. Rsduhamel (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't disagree that the article explains an American idiom, however if you remove the quotes, which represent the true OR issue, it's little more than a dicdef, so should it go to Wiktionary? Travellingcari (talk) 01:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and retitle .The actual title applies to only afew of the entries. Perhaps it might need two articles, though. DGG (talk) 02:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep if retitled and the sarcasm aspect toned down. Hilariously wrong predictions just doesn't sound encyclopedic, but perhaps a silk purse can be wrought here. I'll give it another chance. This is not, of course, a list of famous deathbed statements. --Dhartung | Talk 06:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's questionable whether the quotations were actually made by the quotees. In at least one instance, the quote was demonstrated to be apocryphal. I don't see this article serving any real purpose without sourced information, so per WP:NOR, delete. —X S G 00:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. How is “Randy” reliable? Hosting on a .edu does not a WP:RS make. The “idiom” comments are valid, but explanation of the Americanism belongs on Wiktionary; the rest of the article (quotes) violates WP:NOT. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 00:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd add that although there are books that contain "funny laws" or "worst predictions ever" or "strange but true stories", those are intended for entertainment rather than as research material, so they don't typically have footnotes or bibliography. Such books are no more reliable as sources than, say, a comic book. Case in point is John Lennon's Aunt Mimi-- if you can source her "famous last words" to a biography of John Lennon, then there's some credence to it. If your source is "1,000 Notoriously Wrong Statements", or "500 Dumbest Things Ever Written In a Book", that's another matter. "Randy's webpage" or "500 Dumbest Things" can be a perfect repository for funny stories that may or may not be true. Wikipedia, or Encylopedia Britannica, would not. Mandsford (talk) 01:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The expression is known but there's no point in a long list of statements made ironic by the nature of the speaker. It's a cruft magnet in which every entry but maybe two is endlessly arguable, even if cited, because it's a safe bet that nobody will come up with a citation saying that any given quote is an example of this idiom. Mangoe (talk) 23:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. FLW da page suffices. BusterD (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It could be expanded, focusing more on the history of the idiom and its cultural context/relevance. The number of examples should be reduced and referenced, though. Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge useful context with Last words, then expand that to include their cultural significance; why they are considered important, etc. Tony May (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, partly common knowledge, so the main substance of the page does not need citations. Snowman (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The citations are needed to verify the truth of the statements, most of which belong at wikiquote Travellingcari (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The quotations all need citations. The contents of the citations section can all go in wikiquote, but are quotes listed there under such a definition at the present time in wikiquote. Snowman (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I found something but it doesn't appear to be exactly the same. I think the dicdef goes to Wiktionary, I don't see any relevance/encyclopedic content of any of it to Wikipedia. Travellingcari (talk) 19:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment The meaning of "Famous last words (expression)" is encyclopedic, and it has been a page on the wiki since August 2004. If "Jumping the shark" can get in, then so can this? I think wikiquote needs a new topic area with a carefully thought out heading for quotes that are covered by the expression here. Wikiquote does not seem to cover this exact topic at the present time, but when it does there should be an interwiki link from this page to that page. Snowman (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment I don't think how long it's been here is relevant, but we'll see what the outcome is. Re: jumping the shark WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a valid reason to keep something else. As I said on the talk page, how wikiquote handles the material is up to their guidelines. Travellingcari (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Merge proposal left to editor discretion. JERRY ^talk _contribs 18:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandkulturhuset[edit]

This article feels like borderline spam to me (and I almost speedied it as such). I don't see anything references to make this known as a notable pool complex. It's hard for me to address verifiability since it's Danish and I definitely don't know much beyond English. I was going to suggest a merge to the conference center, DGI-byen, but I'm beginning to wonder if that's worth keeping too (I'll let others decide whether or not that needs to be AFDed as well). Metros (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 non-notable company/organisation/facility. I don't see any particular kind of assertion of notability.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also most of the text is unencyclopedic information, going into a level of detail not required or even wanted on Wikipedia. I mean, does the rest of the world care about the exact measurements of one particular swimming pool?--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect into DGI-byen. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete extremely spammy in both content and tone. No objection to a merge, but what's currently in the article is either spammy in tone or extremely trivial. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Vandkulturhuset (English translation is "Water culture house") is an important cultural epicenter in Denmark, and also, internationally, it represents an important aspect of Danish culture. Perhaps the article needs some revision, but the article does contain a lot of important facts and details about this cultural centerpiece.Glogger (talk) 01:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For a unique location of architectural significance, it is fair to give dimensions of diving boards and pools, since the diving boards and pools form a key part of the architecture. I would suggest adding more on cultural events at the site, such as Danish banquets and concerts, and how the architecture uniquely complements those events - ie. specific examples.Rianoj (talk) 05:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep - non-admin closure - Peripitus (Talk) 05:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aoife Hoey (bobsleigh)[edit]

Nominated by an anon (who therefore cannot complete the nomination). On the talk page, the following discussion has been taking place:

This entry was deleted in 2007 after the usual nomination process was followed; as she no longer competes at Bobsleigh there is no logical reason for her to be relisted a year later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.202.189.254 (talk) 10:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She finished 22nd out of 23 teams with her sister; I have searched for some of the athletes who finished ahead of her on wikipedia and they are not listed. Wikipedia is not here to list everyone who ever represented their country as a journeyman or woman. Where is the notability? --213.202.189.254 (talk) 11:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware that she had been deleted earlier, but I bypassed this in an effort to avoid a potential issue last October. If you read the WP:BIO rules on the amatuer athletes, she does qualify. Chris (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural nomination. No opinion is being expressed by me. ➔ REDVEЯS has changed his plea to guilty 18:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the first sentence of the previous comment: the time to set out why she should not be deleted was when her nomination was going through in the normal way in 2007. She was deleted; what issue would have arisen in setting out why she should not have been deleted then. For my ease please set out why you think she qualifies as notable giving regard to the WP:BIO rules on amatuer athletes; I have read them and they do not change my view. By the way my understanding is she was not an amateur athlete as FIBT offer prize money and she was trying to secure sponsors. It is not wikipedia's job to list everyone who ever competed with little distinction at a sport. There is no notability here. She tried to go to the Olympics and was plain not good enough and she came 2nd from last in a FIBT world championship. She was a journeywoman bobsleigher of little distinction. Any 'coolrunnings' type argument that because she was from Ireland she deserves special credit should be set out; as it should be rejected. She is apart from possibly in her home county of Laois unheard of in Ireland.----213.202.138.250 (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Since she competed at 2005 FIBT World Championships in Calgary, she is notable. Notability does not expire; if she was notable then, she is notable now. --Eastmain (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The deletion referred to in the nomination was an A7 speedy of Aoife Hoey, not an AfD. In my view the speedy was erroneous; the deleted version of the article stated that she is a former Irish Triple Jump champion, a claim to notability. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is per WP:BIO on the athletes section. The FIBT World Championships is the highest level of competition for championships in bobsleigh outside of the Winter Olympics regardless of finish. Chris (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If you look at the revision history of this article, you will notice some deliberate (in my opinion) deletion of information about Hoey's competitive status both in athletics and in bobsleigh. Most of the deletions occurred by the same set of users who is trying to delete this article. Chris (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and move to Aoife Hoey, no disambiguation needed), assuming the claims about competition hold up. --Dhartung | Talk 21:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she meets notability through her participation. I also support the page move. matt91486 (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete-The comment that she meets notability by dint of coming 2nd last in the FIBT championships is facile; once more it has to be restated that it it is not wikipedia's function to list every journeyman or woman bobsleigher/darts player/ tennis player or whatever of little distinction. There has been deletion of bald comments that Hoey participated in athletics- on its own this is and was meaningless. There has also been overstatements and misleading comments posted on the entry which seem to have been posted by those who are trying to keep her on wikipedia come what may. There is the appearance of a vanity entry which is being supported by people who are either overly focused on bobsleigh's place in the grand scheme of things and/or know this lady. I have just gone to the Irish athletics association website and checked their 'all time' list Aoife Hoey's contribution to the world of Irish triple jump is a performance of something like 11.50 metres and she ranks 20th in Ireland on an all time basis. For those of you who do not follow that discipline this is about 4 metres below what world class athletes jump. If she ever did win the national title there it was a case of someone had to; no one else turned up. It is idiotic to suggest that merely winning a national title in a small country like Ireland makes you a lock in to be on wikipedia. Her track and field credits merit no more mention; her bobsleigh standing is little better. She competed for a short time which ended 2 years ago and made up the numbers. This woman along with her sister have been given false credit and promoted to the rank of the 195 other bobsleighers on wikipedia when this group includes all men and women, from all the countries who have performed in this sport over many, many years. The Hoey's short non-career in this sport does not merit this attention. --213.202.138.250 (talk) 09:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You already nominated it, so we were pretty sure you thought it was a strong delete already. But anyway, being 20th all time in an event like triple jump and being a successful winter sports competitor seems to make her notable. People can be among the best in a nation without being world class. I think winning a national title in any country would make you notable. And I can guarantee I don't know her, so that accusation towards the supporters is at least unfounded in my case. matt91486 (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

: It would be nice if I could be sure that you have just read what had been written; becuase your comments make little sense: she is 20th all time in the Republic of Ireland with a personal best of 11.49m which is about 2.15 metres behind the Irish national record holder. This is prob like giving a 5.30min miler a pat on the back. The Irish record holder is a further 2 metres or so off the standards seen in Germany, France, America and so on. Her relevance as a triple junmper is non-existant. She is also not a successful winter sports competitor: she competed sparingly and made up the numbers. This is a young woman if she thought she had a future at it she would have continued; she didn't continue because she made up the numbers. Winning a national title as discussed does not per se make you notable. In small countries like Ireland when attention is focused on soccer, rugby and gaelic sports some years someone has to win the national title and if there is a slump in standards- the winning time or standard is not pretty.--213.202.176.96 (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- It seems that you possess such a vendetta against both of the Hoey sisters that it makes me wonder if you possess a conflict of interest. Also regarding the Siobhán Hoey article, why do you want to delete an article that was already nominated for deletion, but kept? Why do you want to beat a dead horse on an issue that is being resolved? The more comments you make like this, the more foolish you are beginning to look to other editors of Wikipedia. Think about that. Chris (talk) 20:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC) Comment--That is great shoot the messenger and avoid the message; where is the notability here. Answer the questions posed. Strong opinions are entitled to be expressed in a robust fashion; this lady lacks notability. In regard to an AFD that is not the subject of this page they can be reopened; no one needs your permission.--213.202.176.96 (talk) 23:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Participating in the world championship is automatically notable under the WP:BIO rules for athletes. Edward321 (talk) 05:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-- let's go back to basics here. the only WP:BIO I can find is as below:

athletes and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis.

Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them).[8]

There is no bald statement that participation in the world championship gets you in. For now lets say she was an amateur: it says that if you compete at the highest level; and meet the general criteria of secondary sources you may be included. In the first place I say that the Olympics is the higest level of participation for a Bobsleigher; I also say that the general criteria of secondary sources have not been met. I also say that if the Wolrd championship is considered and there is nothing in the standard set out above to suggest that should be used the phrase used is 'competed' and not 'particpated'. This lady made up the numbers she was a particpant and not competing at the highest level. In any event if an amateur the highest level is the Olympics. She did not go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.202.176.96 (talk) 10:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Winter Olympics, however, are only held every four years. It would be needlessly restrictive to only allow amateur competitors who competed at the Olympics to have articles. matt91486 (talk) 21:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - From my interpretation of the WP:BIO, it also includes other sports below the Winter Olympics at their highest level, including the FIBT World Championships in bobsleigh or the World Championships in Athletics for athletes which Hoey was one in the triple jump before going into bobsleigh. Chris (talk) 21:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You are just wrong, wrong, wrong to include the reference to the World Championship in athletics. She didn't go to it; she was no way near. She didn't even go to the European championship. Her standard at the triple jump is woeful by international standards. It is hard to know how you would find yourself writing that comment. It beggers belief; she jumped eleven and a half metres or 11.5 metres at the triple jump- international triple jumpers who go the world championship jump four metres or so more. How are you writing some of the above notwithstanding comments that have been set out already describing how this lady is not much of an athlete. Your interpretation re FIBT is wrong too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.67.220 (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not wrong on my intrepretation of the Notability issue on the WP:BIO. That has been the intrepretation of every article I have done. Additionally, this has been the issue among discussion of various athletes at all levels of sport who have listings in them. Do you want to deal with the notability of the issue of every single athlete who competed in every single sport? This would tie Wikipedia up in knots so much that no article would be created and only articles would be defended. All I am trying to present is the facts from the information I have accessed regardless of if they were the world champion or if they were the last in a particular event at a particular championship. Chris (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let's take this one step at the time; and deal with the one point you ignore in your last comment: do you accept that Hoey never competed in the World Championship at athletics? --78.16.67.220 (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I admit that I am wrong on the World Championships in Athleitcs, but why will you not admit that you are deliberately removing content of her athletic career, even if it is marginal, to justify the article's deletion? The edit history of this article will show this. Chris (talk) 15:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Editing an article is deliberately removing content; why should there be any reference to her track and field career. Conversely there is the appearance that you are blindly insisting that content relating to matters other than bobsleigh is included so as to ensure she stays. I hold my hands up I can not think of a different way to say this: the lady can only jump 11.5 metres at triple jump she should not be discussed on wikipedia in this context. Where is the relevance or notability; you don't seem to have any undertstanding of athletics in light of your promotion of her to world class status. Your comments two statements back are the arguments of those who want to include everyone who ever went to a sporting event come what may. It is easy to weed out those who came last or second last and participated in the discipline for 2 years. Where are the multiple repeated secondary sources on this lady; other than the Laois press and some brief references in the national media by way of colour when she did not qualify for the Olympics. She is not known in Ireland; does not deserve inclusion on wikipedia for the bobsleigh let alone as a triple jumper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.57.123 (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets notability criteria for athletes through competing at the highest level of an amateur sport. Note that she there is no additional qualifier that the person must also win in the sport. -- Whpq (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- The word used in WP:BIO is compete; not particpate. This lady particpated once in the FIBT world championship which is surpassed by the Olympics and came second to last. The comments in WP: BIO also have to be interpreted and applied and in this case they should lead to the conclusion that Hoey should be deleted. --78.16.57.123 (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compete means participate in that context. matt91486 (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - she competed, as in she contended for winning the event. A longshot to be sure but it is still competing. And as for the Olympics, they do not surpass the events held by the governing body of the sport -- Whpq (talk) 17:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The historical records of this athlete shows that she competed in both sports. Google search records of her show this. This is what I used to find the information on her when I first created the article. Chris (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't mean to be rude; but so what she participated in another sport- she maybe played on her school soccer team too. It has to be notable and as a 11 1/2 metre jumper she isn't. In terms of the governing body of the sport's event not being surpassed by the Olympics that is not true. When you read accounts of former athletes whether it is becuase they have died or retired; in some instances it says X won this, that and the other but never the Olympics. The normal meaning of compete is to strive against others to win or some such phrasing. Hoey was not a competitor in this sense. --78.16.57.123 (talk) 22:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - You can try to redefine things as much as you want, but she did indeed compete. And as for the Olympics, their existence does not preclude the importance of the regular sanctioned events in a sport. -- Whpq (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Just because they did not compete at the Olympics did not mean they tried out to reach their respective Olympic team. There are many good athletes who are considered the best in their country who do not even make their own country's Olympic team. Like wise these athletes do very well in their respective sports at the national or international level. This is why the WP:BIO applies. Chris (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply- There is no re-definition here competing has a normal meaning and it has been set out. You make a bald statement that to strive to win etc is wrong and do not back it up at all. Assert away. The points that have been ignored here in recent times and merit some focus: are the brevity of Hoey's career and the fact that there is seemingly just one appearance at the FIBT world championship. The points made about the Olympics are all well and good but in the round a one time FIBT particpiant who came 2nd from last and was involved in the event for 2 years does not merit an appearance on Wikipedia. There are not by the way enough secondary sources on her either. WP: BIO does not include a comprehensive template that can be universally applied in each situation without some sensible application of the spirit of WP: BIO and such an appraoch means Hoey should be deleted. This is not a platform to showcase every journeyman or woman who showed up in championships once or twice well down the field. --78.16.64.211 ([[User talk:78.16.64.211|talk--78.16.64.211 (talk) 12:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)]]) 23:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO does set aside a universal template in this case: competing at the highest level of amateur sports. She did this at the world championship. With this satisfied, notability is satisfied. matt91486 (talk) 00:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply- This becomes circular: didn't compete; wasn't highest level of championship, not enough secondary sources and notwithstanding the fact she came second from last as WP:BIO is not on its own in the way its written applicable in all circumstances without interpretaion- the spirit of WP:BIO had to be considered: how long did the athlete compete for and how many championships did she go to. In this case 2 years, 1 championship and didn't compete participted. --78.16.64.211 (talk) 12:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - you seem hung up on the fact that she didn't do well, and thus insist that she didn't compete. Competing doesn't mean winning. The notability bar is set pretty low because Wikipedia is not paper. You also seem to be insistent that the Olympics represent the highest level of competition in amateur sport. They aren't. The world cups or other international events sanctioned by a sports governing body represent the highest level of competition. The Olympics are simply an every 4 year sports high point. The application of WP:BIO for athletes in AFD has generally been that a single appearance in the top level of competition is sufficient, and so being consistent in the application in this case would be keep. -- Whpq (talk) 13:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Let us also take into account for this article that she did compete in multiple sports which was deleted prior to this nomination for deletion (Check the article history to prove my point.). Let us also take into account that she was a national champion in athletics prior to going into bobsleigh. If another user wanted to create articles on national champions in specific events in athletics in the future, Hoey's name would come up again. Do you want to go through this again in the future? Clearly, Hoey's article would be classified on WP:BIO as a notable one. Chris (talk) 14:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, being a national champion in athletics PLUS competing at the highest level on bobsled does add to her notability. One could argue that being a national athletics champion alone wouldn't confer notability, but when factored in with her bobsled that does confer notability, it is worthy of inclusion in the article. matt91486 (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hoey took part at world championship level in her sport which I have always seen as meeting the extra criteria on WP:BIO. I also found another couple of articles which cover her at bobsleigh which are not in the article 1 and 2. Also unless there are two irish people called Aoife Hoey who do Triple Jump this 3 states that she competed at the European Cup for Triple Jump. There is clearly more than enough here to establish notability for wikipedia. I would strongly suggest moving the article back to just Aoife Hoey, giving a rounded biography including covering her on athletics not just bobsleigh. Davewild (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The European cup is a league competition wherein there are 5 leagues with men's and women's teams promoted and relegated from one to the other- the Irish women are in the 2nd of 5 leagues. It is the lowest level of international athletics particpation where young athletes gain confidence and then go onto European, World and Olympic championships and it would seem in Hoey's case journeywomen athletes get thrown a bone after being around domestic athletics for a while. Hoey has never gone to a European, World and Olympic championship. if she did compete at the European Cup it changes very little; this is still a 11 1/2 metre triple jumper who is 20th on the all time list in the Republic of Ireland and around 4 metres shy of international standards. She is not notable as an athlete in the slightest and same is not worthy of inclusion in the article; one can argue a lot of things but Ms. Hoey's lack of distinction as a triple jumper is immovable. --194.125.76.23 (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We are arguing she meets notability based on her bobsledding. We just think her athletics should be included in the article. matt91486 (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's also worth noting that the majority of the IPs involved in this discussion have little or no edit history outside of this topic. I'm not commenting on anything, but just that it should be thought of the same way that one would think of a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. matt91486 (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - Where do you draw the line on including references to other aspects of someones life; the triple jumping is just plain not notable. To turn to the matter at hand neither is the bobsledding and the reasons for same have been set out repeatedly. You are commenting on the fact that there are anon. Thats not really anything to do with this; the lady in question lacks notability. End of story. --194.125.76.23 (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've already stated your delete opinion above. Please, only one !vote per person. -- Whpq (talk) 01:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Winning a national championship in an athletics event is worth mentioning in anyone's wikipedia article, regardless of how that performance might be on international standards. It might not be worthy of constituting a full discussion, but it's quite worthy of a sentence. matt91486 (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The same set of IP who are trying to delete this article are also the ones who are trying to delete the Sharon Foley article. These fall under the WP:SPA issues. Chris (talk) 23:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:BIO. Participation in the World Championships is suitable to establish notability, and notability does not depend on results. DanielEng (talk) 01:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The WP:SPA point has been made by the same poster already; there is an argument that has been made on both their respective pages for deleting Hoey and Foley. One poster know seems to want to shoot the messenger/s rather than the message. That does not seem the point. Both athletes seem very marginal candidates for Wikipedia and if you follow through the logic set out here by the same poster who is throwing up the smoke on mirrors- who would you leave off Wikipedia??--83.71.168.81 (talk) 11:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The WP:BIO still applies to this article. Also, I am not shooting the messenger on this issue, but every time an edit is applied to an anonymous IP user, it leaves a mark on edits. These edits can be traced. Chris (talk) 14:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Cummings[edit]

Non-notable, has not yet played in a professional league Eddie6705 (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom; non-notable youth player. Recreate when/if he makes a senior appearance. GiantSnowman (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. GiantSnowman (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to meet notability criteria for footballers. King of the North East 21:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete candidate for a prod. Fails WP:BIO by some distance. Peanut4 (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO#Athletes. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 23:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not yet notable. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Punkmorten (talk) 19:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe I tagged this with Speedy a few months ago and it was deleted. Regardless, still not notable per nom. « D. Trebbien (talk) 04:03 2008 February 4 (UTC)
Delete per nom Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 22:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Truxedo[edit]

I can't find secondary sources establishing the notability of this company (it seems to be a company with a product of the same name) excepting car-related or commercial sites. I nominated the article essentially for other opinions, I'm too unfamiliar with the subject and I don't know if the sources given by google are reliable. I know that we can't compare big and small companies on the same basis, but still, I'm not sure that [8] is satisfied . -- Cenarium (talk) 16:05, 18 and 3:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I can. This product is sold at dozens of secondary websites, all sorts of car accessories retailers, and returns over 255,000 hits. You can see it retailed here,here,here,here,or here, or look it up on Google. And while a news search may not return any results, try looking up tonneau cover. Wikilost (talk) 23:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But are they reliable sources ? And I don't think that this search for tonneau can help. -- Cenarium (talk) 03:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything in WP:RS to say they're not reliable sources. I tend to imagine that as far as a product goes, retailers would be reliable sources about it's noteworthiness, which, of course is why this article is being Afd'd isn't it? Wikilost (talk) 06:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems that no one is interested in this afd, still, I think that the problem of whether retailers are decent sources for an encyclopedic content is relevant. -- Cenarium (talk) 01:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, retailers are reliables sources for noteworthiness. No, retailers are not reliable sources for quality or other isuues, I agree. But the article makes no references to quality. Wikilost (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as insufficiently notable per WP:CORP. Neither the company or its products have yet received non-trivial coverage by published reliable sources. — Satori Son 16:09, 1 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, Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete A retailer is of course going to feel that any product they sell is notable. There is nothing I can see that makes this particular maker of tonneu covers notable other than the catchy name. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, assuming no INDEPENDENT sources emerge substantially discussing this product. --Dhartung | Talk 21:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (please, please keep) The retailers may not be reliable sources by themselves, but the great number of them carrying this product prove how notable it is. 12.180.10.10 (talk) 13:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Retailers propose a mass of product to sell, it's a commercial strategy, I think that among them, only a few are notable for encyclopedic purposes. WP:CORP help us to make this distinction, and Truxedo doesn't meet the criteria, hence I support the deletion. -- Cenarium (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Jairus Frigate[edit]

Non-notable fictional character. Google turned up no reliable secondary sources devoting significant coverage to this character to indicate notability, which indicates WP:FICT cannot be satisfied no matter what. Doctorfluffy (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete**. I'd say Merge, but everything important already appears to be in the Riverworld article. -Toptomcat (talk) 02:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant character, running through the series. .Using the authorial voice is a significant structural element of fiction. Needs expansion, to include the real world content of exactly where he appears DGG (talk) 12:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 02:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Riverworld. There are already articles that discuss the literary device: Self-insertion (which lists Frigate as an example) and Author surrogate. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Riverworld. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google Books brings up multiple books that cover this character. See http://books.google.com/books?q=Peter+Jairus+Frigate&btnG=Search+Books (Mind meal (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
merge I don't think anyone is saying this character does not exist, just that an unreferenced stub could just as easily be part of the overall article on the book series.Beeblbrox (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a very notable series, a notable character as the authorial voice, and sources talking about it. That's the sort of attention to character that does establish notability. This is the sort of material that the people discussing this sort of content keep saying they want. It needs to be expanded from the sources. DGG (talk) 02:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is your second !vote. Perhaps you could combine your rationales into one comment and strike the other !vote? Doctorfluffy (talk) 14:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as a quick Google search suggests that it is indeed a notable character, but expand and add additional sources. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep as just meeting WP:N. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Leitman Bailey[edit]

Article about a lawyer that seems to have reliable sources, however, it reads a little bit like a publicity piece. Strictly a procedural nomination; the article was tagged for speedy deletion as a non-notable bio. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 'Twas I who nominated this article for CSD. Article reads as a PR/advertising piece, also I'm concerned there is some copyright issues with this page here. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On account of the many sources Google News brings up, this article should be kept and improved upon. See http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=Adam+Leitman+Bailey&tab=pn&ie=UTF-8 (Mind meal (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Delete The Google News hits are all fairly minor mentions in industry publications. The only assertion of notability is an unsourced statement the he is "one of NYC's best real estate attorneys." Reads like advertising. --L. Pistachio (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment New York Law Journal, Real Estate Weekly, ALM Research, at least five New York Times articles, and many more. The article may not be well written, but notability is clear for anyone who bothers to search through Google News. Obviously some have not, seeing notability as something spectacular as opposed to what it really is: the individual has been noted in multiple reliable sources. (Mind meal (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Delete all the references seem mere reports of relatively unimportant cases from a general encyclopedia standpoint in which he has been involved. Any real third party sources talking about him in a significant way? DGG (talk) 03:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I agree with DGG in one sense in that a majority of the hits concern relatively unimportant events. However, there does seem to be a few Gems in Google News search such as the article on the: “… The former home of the Heisman Trophy” as posted in the New York Daily News and the battle of affordable living, as noted here [9] , which is getting coverage. In addition, it seems like the New York Times uses Mr. Bailey as a guest columnist in answering questions from readers concerning real estate transactions. Likewise, Mr. Baileydoes not seem to shy away from controversial situations, I am not saying that this in it self delineate notability, however the proliferation of the articles, relating to such topics as posted on Google News, I believe establishes notability through credible, verifiable and reliable sources. Shoessss | Chat 15:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking at the Gnews results, it seems his main claim to fame is that when the NYT needs a real estate lawyer to quote, he makes himself available. I cannot find anything that indicates he is of any lasting importance. Mangoe (talk) 23:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Would not that be notable in and of it self. I know the New York Times have never approached me for a quote. Moreover, not to make it personal, but I have not seen Mangoe quoted :-). Making ones, self-available for a quote and being quoted are two entirely different things. Shoessss | Chat —Preceding comment was added at 01:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He has written leases used by Blumberg http://www.blumberglegalforms.com/Forms/3210.pdf and I know that Blumberg uses less than a dozen people to draft their legal forms and they are huge in the industry. Also his law school (Syracuse) has listed him as one of their Notable Alumni http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syracuse_University_College_of_Law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FlowerSmith82 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- He just got a huge temporary restraining order against one of the country's largest real estate developers- trying to save Harlem, and seems to constantly be in the press. http://www.amny.com/news/local/am-harlem0207,0,404592.story NYCUptown —Preceding comment was added at 16:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep per sources added to article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Ross (media executive)[edit]

This article is simply a personal resume of sorts. I have no doubt it was written by a party with a conflict of interest on the matter, and there are only weak and unsourced claims of notability throughout the article based on the companies this person has supposedly been involved with. Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 15:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral There are pretty strong assertions of notability in the article, but I haven't been able to find any reliable sources, which surprised me, for someone who has been gathering up world champtionship titles in skydiving, all the awards mentioned in the second part of the accomplishments sections, etc. It certainly does look like there is a strong COI, which wouldn't matter that much if there were good sources to support statements made, but without sources it is really hard to estimate the notability of this person, not to mention the reliability of the article. The assertions are so strong however, that someone who is a more accomplished searcher than myself, should be able to turn up some sources (which is more complicated by the amount of fairly notable David Rosses). If that fails, however, deletion becomes a very good possibility. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am the original poster of this article. As stated in the talk page, I built this from an interview with David Ross. I have references from articles about him. I can post them here if a neutral source can help verify adding references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ainsworthboyle (talk • contribs) 21:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Even better would be adding them to the article, in a references section. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikipopuli, a more suitable wiki for biographies of people whose notability is in question.TheYellowCabin (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - for now. Add and check the references mentioned above, then re-list if they are not satisfying. --Arcanios (talk) 09:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping me keep this thing alive. I'm putting together articles for references. I've got the actual print material, it's difficult to locate a lot of history, because of the dates <1990s. With some help we can find the references, most of them will be in continued quotes that also provide a biography ainsworth (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Print is fine. Just get the quotes from the article, and use something like ((citejournal)), ((citenews)), or just format it in a way you find easy.
Delete as insufficiently notable per WP:BIO. There is still no evidence that this person "has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." None of the three sources provided comes close to meeting this criteria. — Satori Son 15:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Needs much work if it is to be kept. Articles about persons who aren't well known should stick to the points which establish notability. Essentially meaning we don't need his life story. --neonwhite user page talk 00:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original Poster I will go through and clean out a bunch of the extras. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ainsworthboyle (talk • contribs) 02:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I went through and cleaned out a bunch of the life story content to leave just the details ainsworth (talk) 02:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If he were president of Clear Channel, sure, but he was only Regional Vice President, similarly, with Y-100, he was just one of the group of people who bought the station. If uVuMobile is notable enough for its interim chief exec to be notable, try to write an article on it first. DGG (talk) 03:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. He wasn't one of the people who "bought" WHYI. He was responsible for building WHYI to what it was. The key notability is his responsbility in building Y100, I might not clarify that well in my entry. The rest of the information is just added history to where he went from Y100. It is important to note that Y100 (part of Metroplex) was bought out by Clear Channel, and that Ross still became a part of Clear Channel, only to leave the industry as Clear Channel's path started to change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ainsworthboyle (talk • contribs) 17:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of that is unsourced. Simply having and doing an occupation is not criteria for notability. If he isnt important enough to be mention in reliable sources then there is no notability. --neonwhite user page talk 17:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improve and keep There needs to be more evidence of notability. Blueswan1967 (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added References I added several more references to what I see as some of the key notable facts. His ownership of Y100 that brought it to the monumental radio station that it is now WHYI-FM and his original roles in early Clear Channel before it started to go downhill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.166.242.34 (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete as recreated deleted material. east.718 at 22:53, February 1, 2008

Corey Worthington[edit]

So here we are again. After the huge fuss over the last AfD that even led to media coverage of the actual AfD (which I believe was taken down from the newspaper's website), and a deletion debate over the actual AfD itself, and a deletion review that was endorsed, the protection has expired, and a user, in good faith, has created an article about this person again. Apart from having appeared on a few television programmes and supposedly hiring an agent to go into party promoting, what has changed since the last AfD? I don't see that a deletion review has taken place to allow for consensus for a recreation, either (last time the article title was Corey Delaney which now redirects here, as an alternative name). h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E, and let the drama begin.........--brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell whether this would be applicable for WP:CSD#G4 since I'm not an admin and do not have access to the privilege of viewing deleted pages.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment not sure I can say keep, since I made the article, but I've added more things he's been offered, such as hosting the Big Brother TV series --AW (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-noteworthy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightscream (talk • contribs) 19:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Like it or not the main stream media keeps devoting time to this guy, see google news. He is famous for being famous. Wiki pages are devoted to people who died drinking water in an attempt to win a video game. I agree, he doesn't deserve to be famous, so what, he is famous. It might be better to call the page "The corey delaney incident", and revisit devoting a personal page a year from now if Mr Delaney's fame has legs. Geo8rge (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Yawn. Nothing's changed since the last AfD except that he got a job. There's *less* attention to him now than before. He's little different than most teenagers that host a party without their parents knowledge, even if he does wear big glasses and make an ass of himself on TV. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Until now I managed to be totally unaware of this person, and I came to this AfD due to seeing the name in a blue link at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biographies (where almost all links are red). This guy has been the subject of numerous published articles by reliable secondary sources, so he meets the first criterion for notability. Although he is notable for only one event, reporting of the story of that one event and subsequent developments seems to be so widespread that many previously oblivious people (people like me) are likely to come to Wikipedia to try to find out who "Corey Worthington" is. Further, it is difficult to identify some other topical article where the story of that one event could reasonably be inserted, in place of a stand-alone article. Finally, the current article does not appear to violate WP:BLP standards. --Orlady (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well referenced, decently written article about an apparently notable incident, and a person who is obviously attempting to transform his 15 minutes into a career. 206.246.160.29 (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. See also the previous nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sesame Street closing sequence (also a "delete" decision). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sesame Street Closing Sequence[edit]

Unencyclopedic. Georgia guy (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Given just how pervasive the closing sponsorship by two letters and a number is in at least American popular culture (dunno about other countries), I'd think at the very least notability is not an issue. If the concern is that there's too much detail, that's a reason to cleanup, not a reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater. If the nominator could explicate that deletion reason, though, it'd be helpful. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree that it's unencyclopedic in its current form. I have major doubts that it's notable enough independently from Sesame Street to warrant a seperate article (i.e. multiple reliable non-trivial published sources specifically addressing the closing sequence), but Quasirandom has a point, it seems to be a well-known part of American popular culture (and many people in the UK would probably at least understand the reference).--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep/merge needs cleanup due to the painful amount of trivial details, but solid ground otherwiseBeeblbrox (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Today's article is brought to you by the letters "O" and "R" However, a weak keep given the 40 year run of Sesame Street, and its influence on millions of American children who have gown up during that time. Mandsford (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. All that needs to be said on this topic already appears in a single sentence in the Sesame Street article: Within the context of the show, and before the actual underwriting announcements, it is announced that "Sesame Street is brought to you by" the letters and number of the day, as though they too were sponsors. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In this exceptional case, i think the sequences are notable. DGG (talk) 03:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I just commented above (didn't "vote"), but I agree with Metropolitan on this one thinking about it now.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a....13:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BotMachine3 (talk • contribs)
Comment. Wikipedia is not a closing logo description. Thus, this article is broguht to you by the letters 'D' and 'K. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ACMEMan (talk • contribs) 13:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Where is the article's revision history? It seems to be created ( from some other page? ) by a bot. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- BotMachine3's creation of the article was the only edit before this article's nomination. Georgia guy (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, I didn't think human editors were allowed to have "bot" in their names. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I put a note about this AFD on the talk page for Sesame Street, to see if there's any interest in a cleanup/merge. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as relentlessly geeky trivia. Having read some of this article, I have to agree with Metropolitan90 that the few sentences in the main Sesame Street article are sufficient. Mangoe (talk) 23:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the past an essentially identical article has been deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sesame Street closing sequence. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we mention that this is a second nomination at the top of the AFD? Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that we usually do with a template at the beginning if the previous Afd is known. In any case, it's still delete, not simply because it is repost, but also because I see little here that would change the previous consensus. Transwiking would also be fine.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should have the other AFD up top for recordkeeping purposes. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Muppet Wikia has a similar article this could be merged to: Muppet.wikia.com: Sesame Street Theme Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This could be covered in the main Sesame Street article, probably in the span of two sentences. Gladys J Cortez 01:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a little more to it than the "brought to you by the letter A and the number 1" line. I wouldn't mind a well-sourced description of the little films they showed during the closing credits, and the different songs they used over the years. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Keep -- Given the history of the show, some of the information is valuable; however, the article is tainted with too much trivial minutae, such as the bit-by-bit styles of the closings and the copyrights. Lots of editing is needed, if kept. -- azumanga (talk) 03:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment -- according to Nate's information regarding Gsnguy ([10]), BotMachine3, the originator of this article, is a sock of Gsnguy. -- azumanga (talk) 14:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering what I have seen of Gsnguy's demeanor, I change my vote to delete. Let someone else who actually has business being here add the info. -- azumanga (talk) 17:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Merge to Teeterville, Ontario. Tikiwont (talk) 10:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teeterville Pioneer Museum[edit]

No proof of the museums notability. There are some sources, but, one is a museum association and the rest are promotional material. Fails WP:N. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Teeterville, Ontario, which could use the expansion. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per -User:Hit bull, win steak. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. --L. Pistachio (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also believe that a Merge is in order to Teeterville, Ontario. Keep the article about Teeterville Public School separate but the info on this article could be used to expand the main Teeterville article. GVnayR (talk) 03:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Merge to Waterford, Ontario. Tikiwont (talk) 10:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spruce Row Museum[edit]

No proof of the museums notability. There are some sources, but, one is a museum association and the rest are promotional material. Fails WP:N. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Waterford, Ontario, since it's a prominent point of local interest, and the town article's not very long. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per -User:Hit bull, win steak. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this article into the main town article like what User:Hit bull, win steak said. It could use the expansion. GVnayR (talk) 03:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 10:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Grimm[edit]

Not notable in any way. — TAnthony^Talk 17:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to fail WP:BIO -FrankTobia (talk) 18:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to be so Grim(m) but Delete per WP:BIO. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable per WP:BIO. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep (closed by non-admin). RMHED (talk) 22:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Martin[edit]

Doesn't sound notable and Wikipedia is not a memorial Pollytyred (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment: if he is notable the eulogism can be edited out. So far this is what Ive found (search on "Phil Martin". --Paularblaster (talk) 23:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Phil Martin was a professional light heavyweight boxer [11] and so meets WP:BIO imo. He went on to become a respected trainer. The article is however badly in need of a rewrite. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have rewritten the article to get rid of the eulogistic tone though it's still in need of a few sources. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a professional he meets WP:BIO#Athletes. My internet searches have only returned trivial mentions in coverage of other people, along the lines of "working with legendary coach Phil Martin gave him discipline" - I suppose 1994 is just too early to get much internet coverage himself, and someone will have to dig out paper sources. There is an "autobiography of a professional boxer" on amazon.co.uk, not of Phil Martin, but the blurb prominently mentions his gym. --Paularblaster (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not only was he a pro boxer but also held the British Central Area light heavyweight title and fought a British title eliminator - this would make him one of the top 5 British LH's at the time.--Vintagekits (talk) 15:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy Delete per CSD A7. _Talk Islander 23:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Mendel (Mendell)[edit]

non-notable. none of the bands listed have articles, and now he is a librarian (which I respect, but is not notable). Kingturtle (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, could easily be an A7 CSD nn bio. Fails WP:V and WP:N totally.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, article is completely orphaned--DerRichter (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Non-admin closure per WP:SNOW. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 21:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Loginova[edit]

Seems like more of a newspaper story than an encylopedia article. Pollytyred (talk) 17:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable. JohnCD (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I considered creating this article a few days ago as I thought there was a serious chance of notability, although didn't want to do so just yet. Unusually, she was a female bodyguard to a notable boxer, a model, and died an unusual death. There are definitely news sources in English about her death and life, and if sources from before that exist in Russian I might be inclined towards a keep here.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, the current version of this article is poorly written, but there are at least claims to notability here plus verifiable coverage.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cited by many news websites (several pages on Google), noted by the Times (London) as Russia's most famous female bodyguard, noted model (Chanel, BMW), featured in magazines (Maxim and others) including interviews (this was BEFORE her death so she had some notability even before her murder). Fairchoice (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see sources that discuss her that were published before her death. If I see these, then I'll probably be in favour of keeping this.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure there may be some in English - Don't forget about the Russian language, though. She may be more well known in Russian. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I used Google translator on this article http://www.park.ru/google/doc_info.parkru?urn=9020625 - and this reveals that in 2006 a Russian paper reported on Kostya Tszyu having her as a bodyguard. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Auto translation: http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.park.ru%2Fgoogle%2Fdoc_info.parkru%3Furn%3D9020625&langpair=ru%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 WhisperToMe (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there are 38,000 or so hits for her name in Russian quoted. I of course can't do anything with any of these links, but if someone with Russian ability could go through and determine if something worthwhile is there, then I'm all for keeping. matt91486 (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's unfortunate that I only speak English, because it'd help in certain AfD debates if I knew more languages. I understand elementary French and most of the Scots language, but that's about it.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 03:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep International english language coverage, so i do not understand the concern about knowledge of russian.DGG (talk) 04:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but there's also WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP1E.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The articles referenced may have been written in response to her death, but they make it clear that she was already notable while alive, with phrases such as, "Russia's most famous female bodyguard" (Daily Mail), "One of the world's most famous female bodyguards" (KUTV), "for many Russians, a feminine icon" (CNN), and "a well-known model" (Moscow News). Phil Bridger (talk) 15:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - according to several English sources she was notable before hand as well, even an "icon" Epson291 (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Widely reported news story of the "world's most famous female bodyguard". Meets minimum threshhold for notability. Kershner (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Above. Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 00:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable in the media before her death. Notable enough for starting a female bodyguard firm and being a prominent model with a Maxim spread. NTK (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy Delete (non-admin closure). brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Various devices in a computer[edit]

This cites no sources and appears to be somebody's college notes or original research. The material is already covered, in Computer and articles which can be found by following links from there. JohnCD (talk) 17:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyvio of [12].--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The arguments for keeping the article were not compelling, and the article continues to fail WP:RS, and therefore WP:V and WP:N. The sources provided in the article are either from the subject of the article, or very brief mentions in passing, so they do not qualify as WP:RS. This deletion is not prejudicial, however, so if reliable, independent sources can be found which show notability, the article can be recreated. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AutoSimSport Magazine[edit]

seems like a non-notable magazine, has no secondary sources to establish notability. Pollytyred (talk) 17:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Website on this Magazine. It is an E-magazine. What makes it non-notable, because you haven't read it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.128.147.10 (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP AutoSimSport Magazine has had 294,500 total issue downloads since its inception. The magazine averages a circulation of 12,000 readers per issue. AutoSimSport Magazine is read by people in an average of 70 countries worldwide on a monthly basis. The AutoSimSport website has had a cumulative average of 1,178,713 website hits per month since July 2006. Ljmagyar (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC) — Ljmagyar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Non-notable e-zine. Seems a tad promotional to me, even without that though, wouldn't be more notable than most other non-notable online mags. MBisanz ^talk 17:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it seems that the creator and main editor might be the lead marketer of the publication, so it's very possible this is a WP:SPAM-ish article. MBisanz ^talk 19:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, [13] has an alexa rankings of between the ~900,000th and ~3,500,000 most popular website on the internet. MBisanz ^talk 02:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Alexa is showing AutoSimSport.net with a ranking of 926,878 out of tens-of-billions of websites. Ljmagyar (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sim racing is a sub-genre of computer "gaming". It's an area of gaming that is experiencing new development. As computer hardware becomes more robust, so will the simulation software like Live for Speed. This magazine fills the sim racing niche. We can work on the promotional tone. E_dog95'^{Hi '} 19:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can understand why it might be considered self promotion if it was a marketer of the publication who created it, but as a fan of the sim-racing genre I would have created it myself had it occurred to me to do so and I have no affiliation with the magazine. We can always work on the tone. If sim racing warrants an entry I believe AutoSimSport warrants an entry.(ZappoMechanic (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)) — ZappoMechanic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I would consider the fact that large corporations such as Logitech consider it notable enough to advertise their products as well as nearly every other smaller company that produces hardware and software specific to simulated racing. It has interviewed on several occasions the creators of several of the simulators Wikipedia has substantial sections on. It has a large entry on simulated racing, this is the the largest publication related to sim-racing- I think it's notable certainly within that context. (ZappoMechanic (talk) 17:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Keep I think there is enough evidence it isthe leading publication in its field. But, FWIW, I do not think that every publication a notable company advertises in is relevant. if there were many publications in the field, i'd expect to see Logitech ads in each one of them.DGG (talk) 04:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have set up an account with GoStats to externally track data. We have been using AWStats in addition to Webalizer. The addition of GoStats makes three sources of statistical data. Ljmagyar (talk) 02:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Exactly Zero of the references in the article are "significant coverage by reliable third party sources". Non-notable. And that's without even going into the COI issues. And AwStats, webalizer, and gostats are not independent - they're simply numbers on your own site. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: <Autosimsport is the only sim racing publication I am aware of, and sim racing is a notable activity. ASS is the first port of call for many sim racers to get the latest info on their hobby and to find out about the lastest developments. They have exclusive interviews revealing exclusive information, and so for anyone interested in sim racing (and judging by the number of articles on here for various sims, that is not an insignificant number) ASS is highly relevant.> (Simon) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.140.64 (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would think that the amount of downloads per issue is enough to let it stay. It reviews just about every racing/driving sim in the majority of formats available. Many times this is done before the general public gets their hands on them. It has also been the chosen release point for important mods. The hardware designers/manufactures have routinely used AutoSimSport to test and review their equipment. The fact that simracing actually had a page here caught me off guard. But if it's here then quite simply AutoSimSport should most certainly be allowed inclusion. It is the only mag related to the topic. Kevin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.37.44 (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Others are on the way as soon as I can dig them up, but to help establish credibility The Australian, December 5, 2006 ran an article about sim racing by Simon Canning. A substantial section introducing the subject is an interview with Alex Martini, editor of AutoSimSport Magazine, and mentions the magazine as well. AutoSimSport would be the the first place someone in the media would go to for information. A scan of the article is available: http://img341.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ccf0912200600002bej6.jpg (ZappoMechanic (talk) 21:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

NASCAR Illustrated, "The Best Driver You've Never Heard of", October 2006, page 54. It quotes Bob Simmerman (assistant editor of the magazine), and names the magazine describing it as "on online publication that covers SimRacing." It's pretty clear to me that though sim-racing itself is a rather niche hobby, when it does surface within the popular press, AutoSimSport is frequently mentioned and its editors/writers consulted. In my opinion, it easily meets the criteria for being the leading publication in its field (sim racing)- even if that field is relatively small. At any rate, sim-racing itself has an entry here and that entry would be more useful if it could link to a wiki for AutoSimSport which is the primary source for those interested in news and information about sim-racing. (ZappoMechanic (talk) 01:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Here is a link to a PDF version of the above article: http://www.bugeyetech.com/virtual.pdf (ZappoMechanic (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Whoops, I got some of that wrong. The article is called "Virtually the Best" and, I forgot to add, was written by Jay Pfeifer. Sorry about that. Thank you. (ZappoMechanic (talk) 02:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

The result was Redirect to Butler Catholic School. Please note, I am abstaining from opinion on the notability of Butler Catholic School. We don't need to articles that say essentially the same thing however. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Butler Catholic[edit]

Average Catholic middle school, nothing to demonstrate notability, and middle schools are not inherently notable Nyttend (talk) 16:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into School District???? --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "Butler Catholic" is apparently a duplicate of Butler Catholic School. The parent entity for a merge/redirect is Roman Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Butler Catholic School, per Gene93k. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Gene93k. Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 03:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete --Salix alba (talk) 01:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gplex Database[edit]

Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Nothing notable. No sources or references. Delete Undeath (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Hockeyalltheway25 (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Eight pages of googling turned up absolutely nothing except places where you can allegedly download whatever this thing is. Mangoe (talk) 23:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 10:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meihuaquan[edit]

Not Notable, no sources two links to club sites. Nate1481(^t/_c) 16:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Nate1481(^t/_c) 16:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well-known art, well-attested via ghits. JJL (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well known in CMA circles. Needs refs, but they should be easy to find. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 21:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete; Copyvio. The primary editor admitted copying this and that it's copyrighted by someone else. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honan Bei Shaolin Mei Hua Chuan[edit]

Notability, unsourced claims are HUGE (oldest chines MA) but the links are all primary so no help there. Plus it's not clear if it's about the art the school or what, ignoring the state of the article (which is a big ask) the claims and tone are unencyclopaedic and from the copyright tag @ the bottom seems like it is a copy an paste job. Nate1481(^t/_c) 16:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Nate1481(^t/_c) 16:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete parts are even written in the 1st person--almost surely a copy-and-paste from somewhere else. Not a notable branch. Can redirect to the Meihuazhuang article but not sure this is needed. JJL (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. RogueNinja_talk 02:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EarthCare[edit]

Fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:ORG. No links at all, not even a home page. Plus, it even asserts non-notability in saying "mainly doing small things like litter pick up". Delete Undeath (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: fails WP:N and WP:ORG -FrankTobia (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#WEBSPACE. Never asserts notability, fails WP:ORG Doc Strange (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm in agreement that the article currently fails WP:ORG and is unlikely to pass it in the near future. SorryGuy Talk 05:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kapileshwar[edit]

Delete - A copy-past article on a music director from this link [14]. Creator is probably Kapileshwar himself at least he has taken this name as userid. Many unreferenced claims are included in the article though It is debatable that whether those awards can pass him at WP:MUSIC or not. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 16:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have a nasty, judgemental reaction every time I read an article that uses the word 'upcoming' in the first sentence. So I've waited a while and come back to the article again and still believe it fails WP:BIO: even if referenced, I don't believe the claims made amount to sufficient notability. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've looked very hard for evidence of notability, but there's none at all. None of the awards seem particularly notable, either; the album has received little or no attention in the press; and the text appears lifted from his personal website. Relata refero (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep due to meeting WP:MUSIC requirement of "has had a charted hit on any national music chart." ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry (band)[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. Top peak was somewhere in the 70s with no sources to prove that. Non notable what-so-ever. Undeath (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep So, were they formed in 1998, as the article says, or did they peak in the 70's, and the AfD nom says? References badly needed to establish something, anything, about this topic. Beeblbrox (talk) 20:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWhen I say peaked, I meant the song peaked at somewhere in the 70s. Having one hit is not notable enough in my opinion. Especially when it did not even get within the top 20.Undeath (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The only claim to notability in the article is having a #78 hit in Australia, but this suggests it reached #46, which is more of a genuine hit. No album, nothing else to suggest notability. No coverage found. I'm guessing they would have at least received some coverage in Australia.--Michig (talk) 20:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as per Michig. There's enough to suggest some chart success and touring activity, although clearly the article needs work. Bondegezou (talk) 17:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think that top 50 is a pretty decent standard for what a hit is and as such this band is notable per WP:MUSIC. SorryGuy Talk 06:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fabio Zamblera[edit]

Contested PROD: Italian 17-year old player recently signed by Newcastle who clearly fails WP:BIO (no professional first team appearances). Business as usual, I'd say. Angelo (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Angelo (talk) 16:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom; non-notable youth player. Recreate when/if he makes a senior appearance. GiantSnowman (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to meet notability criteria for footballers, recreate on debut appearance. King of the North East 21:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO#Athletes. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 23:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Eddie6705 (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW, possible WP:POINT too; no real reason for deletion given. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Antony Garrett Lisi[edit]

Antony Garrett Lisi is not a legitimate physicist. He is not employed by any reputable research institution and does not publish in peer-reviewed journals of any kind. His work is of no consequence to the progress of physics other than as an annoyance. He does not meet the criteria for notability by any stretch of the imagination. Authoritative information source (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And Wikipedia is supposed to accept the judgment of an anonymous authority? Tom Ruen (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is getting 150 to 200 hits per day, [15] - over 6,000 reads already this month. Given the publicity he has received, and this public interest, the article satisfies WP:N. Jheald (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Its not a good idea to use that as a notability barometer. People who would like to have an article kept will sit all say clicking on the article to pump its hits. As a matter of fact, it will end up wasting huge amounts of bandwith and should be removed totally. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. A notability poll has just been executed on the article's talk page itself. The tone of the AfD serves as flame bait at best. The originator of this request has had problematic edits in the past (see here), though some of his edits were moderate (e.g. this one to the Luboš Motl article). Koeplinger (talk) 22:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the small number of contribution (14) of the submitter may point to a speedy keep. --Salix alba (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There seems to be nothing about this article that justifies deletion. Per Koeplinger and assuming good faith, the reason for this AfD does sound suspicious. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Snow? Colonel Warden (talk) 16:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep as meeting WP:RS, and therefore WP:V and WP:N. Note that the mere fact of a song's existence is not a reason to have an article. This article was kept because there has been significant coverage in reliable sources about it being leaked. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candy Shop (Madonna song)[edit]

Delete or Redirect - Another non-notable song by Madonna, which should be deleted or redirected to Madonna until further notice. Surfer-boy94 (talk) 01:26, 01 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources mean nothing if the song doesn't exist. Thankyoubaby (talk) 06:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The song exists. It was leaked to the Internet in August. "Notable" is an opinion. The bottom line is that the song exists.—DMWN (talk) 03:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would a "A low-quality seventeen-second snippet of the track" deserve its own article? Thankyoubaby (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Candy Shop" was leaked in its entirety (4 mins. and 17 sec.) last fall, in a high quality format, has gotten radio spins, and is confirmed to be a track on Madonna's forthcoming album. It definitely warrants an article.—DMWN (talk) 07:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why this album cut would deserve its own article. Thankyoubaby (talk) 23:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whether the song is notable or not, the fact remains the song is real and that public has heard it. The real avenger (talk) 08:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All involved artists approved the facts. --Red-Blue-White (talk) 10:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep as he has received media coverage not directly related to the iPhone hacking (e.g., his science project, what he's doing with his life now). WP:BLP1E does not apply because of that additional coverage. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Hotz[edit]

I feel that the George Hotz article should be deleted because the subject is not notable enough per WP:BIO guidelines.

The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field

His unlocking the iPhone was received media coverage because of the iPhone's widespread popularity. However, this does not mean he is notable enough to be "part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." If this passes the bar for inclusion into the Wikipedia, then what about all the other hackers out there who cracked Windows, the Wii, or any other widely-used consumer product? (Sure, some of these people may wish to remain anonymous, but that's beyond the point.)

Hotz has very little claim to fame besides the iPhone. His award at an Intel competition geared towards high school students is not notable enough.

My two cents. Wikipedian06 (talk) 04:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple reliable and verifiable sources establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 04:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - maybe deserves a blurb in the hacking section of the iPhone article, but nothing more. -FrankTobia (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. (Mind meal (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Keep this wasa notable accomplishment by itself.DGG (talk) 04:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think he deserves to be part of wikipedia because he did a quite important thing and he got media coverage. [Hamlet]
Keep Since there is media coverage of it, i believe it is notable enough to being included. Crystalclearchanges (talk) 14:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that it was a notable accomplishment. It differs from anyone cracking "any other widely-used consumer product" because of the impact it has made; e.g. The increase in Apple Shares (as mentioned in the CNBC [interview]), Apple's report of 250,000 of the 1.4 million iPhones sold (in September Earnings) having been unlocked, and the estimate of one-third of all iPhones sold having been unlocked. If these "other" cracks on extremely popular products such as the Wii (which was even more popular than the iPhone) were as notable, they too would have received media coverage. However, George's iPhone unlock was significant beyond just a "crack" and thus received (and deserved) a more notable status. Lkrofct 7:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to iPhone as this is his only real importance. Mangoe (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E.--Inkhorn (talk) 16:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just looked him up he is an interesting man and for several reasons: economic impact on apple;as a memebr of the free tech movement 82.69.4.86 (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus due to plethora of possible SPA opinions expressed here. Please take merge discussions to appropriate talk pages. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kaimal[edit]

All these articles created against WP:NOR policy and may be re-directed (or have a brief mention about it) to Nair or Caste system in Kerala (in list-wise order, if references established). Another two more editors have also raised concern about whether to keep this or not. Thanks. --Avinesh Jose T 13:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because [as mentioned above]:

Avinesh Jose T 05:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/India. --Avinesh Jose T 05:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- There is proper referencing for the article, although more may be required. More content should be added about the Kaimals, rather than just deleting the article.Jammedfly (talk) 05:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Above user has only 22 edits. All above articles qualify as WP:OR and there are no reliable independent sources available. --Avinesh Jose T 08:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't know what my contribution to Wikipedia has anything to do with the validity of my statements. The fact is there are numerous credible independant references to the most of the above articles. For example from the Nambiar article:

1. ^ Bombay (India : Presidency) (1883). Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency. Govt. Central Press, 195. Retrieved on 2007-12-18. 2. ^ C. J. Fuller, The Internal Structure of the Nayar Caste, Journal of Anthropological Research (1975), p. 285. 3. ^ A general collection of ... voyages and travels, digested by J. Pinkerton - Page 736 4. ^ Kareem, C.K. (1973). Kerala under Haider Ali and Tipu Sultan. Paico publishing house, 136,137. Retrieved on 2007-12-18.

1. Fawcett. F Nairs of Malabar. Asian Educational Services, NewDelhi. 1990. 2. Miller, Eric J. 1954. Caste and Territory in Malabar. American Anthropologists 56(3):410-420. 3. Miller, Eric J. 1955. Village Structure in North Kerala. In M.N. Srinivas ed. India’s Village. Bombay: Media Promoters & Publishers. 4. Gough, Kathleen 1955a. Female Initiation Rites on the Malabar Coast. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 85(1/2): 45-80. 5. Makkam: The Story of the "Canonization" of a Nayar Woman A. Aiyappan Folklore, Vol. 45, No. 2 (Jun., 1934), pp. 164-169

Even the Kaimal, a stub article, has a credible reference. Articles such as Panikkar, Nambiar, Karnavar, cannot be merged into a single article such as Nair, because they are too long and also because it relates to other communities such as Ezhava, Ambalavasi, Brahmin as well. The above articles should exist for the same reason that there are articles on Kerala, Haryana, Tamil Nadu, etc. which haven't all been merged with the India article. For the above mentioned stub articles, they should be made larger by valuable contributions. As far as I know it is not Wikipedia policy to cut down stub articles instead of making them better.Jammedfly (talk) 01:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I commented above, all these must be merged with ‘Cast system in Kerala’ article with a small description (no need of creating separate article since lacking its significance or notability). I am not much sure about the references you are furnished. Still all these articles drawing on editor’s personal knowledge and did not cite with valid sources. If that is the case, it should not have nominated. --Avinesh Jose T 04:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(You commented) I don't know what my contribution to Wikipedia has anything to do with the validity of my statements. Please note that I’m not discouraging you to comment. WP is very glad you wish to help develop this encyclopedia. New users are always welcome (WP:WEL) and don’t feel that I’m biting you. However, as a new user you may not have much awareness of our policy i.e in this case, WP:NOR. Please do not mistaken. --Avinesh Jose T 07:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the articles are merged with Nair or Caste System of Kerala, the article will become much too long, and information will be deleted by other users, causing important information (which are properly referenced) to be lost. You will also find that there are articles on Nair, Ezhava, Nambudiri. Then why not merge them all into a giant article as well? The groups such as Kaimal, Kurup, Menon, Panikkar, Nambiar deserve their own articles since they are different communities.Jammedfly (talk) 00:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- per Jammedfly.(Shyamsunder) 18:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not sure we can have a useful deletion discussion on this. If sourced, I think some (but perhaps not all) of these articles have their own independent notability. But the offline sources cited are described so poorly it is hard in some to know what the claimed source is. Often it is just an author and a title - no publisher, year, location, etc. To be fair, a little googling does turn up some of these sources, e.g. [[16]]. Assuming good faith, this does seem to be legitimate encyclopedic content that is simply in need of some careful improvement. Wikidemo (talk) 11:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Plenty of encylopedic content unrelated to the general Nair article, references for most articles, large numbers of people belonging to the communities mentioned easily making it notable enough. If each Jatt clan in Punjab gets their article, I don't see why Nair sub-castes can't find a spot on an encyclopedia.Nambo (talk) 14:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't an argument. Relata refero (talk) 15:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - content seems to be encyclopedic. Have we started a rally against offline sources that I'm unaware of? matt91486 (talk) 16:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all all these articles are of importance.

Tinucherian (talk) 08:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(above comment) possible bad faith comment. details. User:Tinucherian had invloved in bad faith nomination also. --Avinesh Jose T 05:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. stubs with potential. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.

Potential? Funny! This a subcaste (or the title conferred on it) of a subcaste of a caste. The article is created by Single Purpose Account promoting upper caste uppity stuff on Wikipedia. I have shown on several occasions that he provides false references. An entry in an old-fashioned reference (of marginal academic relevance) has an entry on kaimal, which can be seen here. Incidentally this shows that the reference in the article is false. At best a Wiktionary item.59.91.253.37 (talk) 14:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— 59.91.253.37 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Avinesh Jose T 09:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Kaimal is a subcaste of Nair, also used as a title. It may not be a major subcaste like Menon, Panikkar or Nambiar which have differences to each other (usually they do not intermarry readily). Your contributions do not show that you have proved that people have been making false references. Old-fashioned references of academic relevance (even though it may be marginal) are useful and maybe you should list this in the Kaimal article. Also I am not a sockpuppet of anyone and I believe you have absolutely no evidence to prove that I am, only that my account is a new one.Jammedfly (talk) 00:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Nair, no independent existence required at this stage. The articles can always be resurrected if someone produces enough references to actually build independent articles rather than the pathetic combination of stubs and self-aggrandizement we have currently. Relata refero (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please refer to the larger articles that have been nominated for deletion such as Panikkar, Nambiar, Samanthan which would make the Nair article enormous in size. Also people belonging to these communities identify themselves as Panikkar, Nair or Samanthan Kshatriya, although they belong to the Nair community. It would be like cramming the articles on Rajput, Lohana, Kamboja, Jatt, Khatri, Malayala Kshatriya all into the Kshatriya article.Jammedfly (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at them. If we eliminate even a fraction of the unsourced content, there'll be no problem at all. Relata refero (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Nair article is already large as it is. And not only is the problem related to size, but also notability. Panikkar, Samanthan and Nambiar are large subcastes each with significant population. The customs of each group can vary widely (e.g. Samanthans and Nambiars do not have Talikettu, only Poduvamuri), just as the traditions of Nambudiri Brahmins vary with Kashmiri Pundits. Just as there are articles for the different subcastes of Brahmin (Nambudiri, Iyer, Iyengar, Saraswat, etc.) when it could all be merged into one article, there should also be articles for the subcastes of Nairs, given that it is significant like the Nambiars, Samanthans, Panikkar, etc.Jammedfly (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned below, the Nair article has lots of space once the pooicy-ciolating quotefarm is removed. As to notability, once sufficient reliable sources are demonstrated for each section in the main article, then, if necessary, they can be spun out into individual articles. There are insufficient RSes for all of these currently. Relata refero (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the closing admin: If it is merging, Achayan shouldn’t be merged to Nair. It should be mentioned in Saint Thomas Christians or Syrian Malabar Nasrani. Thanks. --Avinesh Jose T 04:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the articles. Each of them has a distinct meaning and position in society and as a previous user mentioned, Nair is too long to merge anything into it. Or else have a separate article called Nair Titles or something which clubs all of these. Manu —Preceding comment was added at 13:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once the quotefarm that can safely be transwikied, is, there will be tons of space. Relata refero (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problem not only with space, but the fact that the above articles are notable in their own right.Jammedfly (talk) 22:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Manu commented): Each of them has a distinct meaning and position in society. It is not a big issue, if it is merging to Nair in list-wise order. I don’t think keeping all this as independent articles per ~~WP:N~~, see WP:NOR. According to Jimmy Wales, 1, "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information". Thanks. --Avinesh Jose T 04:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest again that instead of merging it with Nair, we could have a new article, say List of Nair Titles or somthing similar in which all of this can be fitted. Manu —Preceding comment was added at 05:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need, because it is not very important. In my opinion, let us make a new ‘section’ in Nair itself. It is already there, see Typical Nair last names, We don’t completely transwiki the entire contents as it is. Just to list each titles briefly with a small discription, no further importance required. --Avinesh Jose T 05:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is the Jimmy Wales quote about being against misleading or false information relevant to these Nair subcaste articles Mr Jose?. Like of I said before among 4 million Nairs these sub-castes, some of whom are/have been endogamous, have significant amounts of people belonging to them. I would support having a list of Nair sub-caste page for the smaller Nair sub-caste articles with no references such as the list of Simpsons characters article, like Manu proposes. I sincerely hope being clueless about Nair communities and Malabar (I assume based on your decision to put up Achayan for deletion) does not cloud your views in decision making Mr Jose.Nambiar (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Nambiar, the whole sub castle articles are made-up with a lot of original research and many of them seem like a spammy tone. That’s why I quoted Jimmy Wales comments in this case. And please keep in mind that I asked for a third opinion in Kerala discussion forum also. Based on the respond I’ve nominated. We need to get a clear consensus in this case. Thanks. Check this DRV also (see the annomy user's comment).--Avinesh Jose T 04:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of plants poisonous to equines[edit]

The category "Category:Plants poisonous to equines" was recently deleted; this seems a far more appropriate place to put these, rather than a list which has to be linked in the "see also" of each page, even though it is not related to them, and maintained separately. Verisimilus T 17:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, the category was deleted after a CfD discussion which decided to listify. Honestly, I think that the list is mostly pointless, as many of these plants, such as the rhododendrons, are already poisonous to most animal species. However, I created the list as carrying out consensus from the CfD discussion, which can be found at:

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_December_19#Category:Plants_poisonous_to_equines

Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 22:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs citations for each entry, but it's a useful supplement to Equine nutrition. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve though a list of scientific names is kind of hard to use without more info like common names and some other basics, no one is going to click on every article to see what it is. Horses are a bit different from other livestock because of their joint status as a companion animal and a grazing animal, they can get into things that are not an issue for either, say, cows or dogs. Montanabw^(talk) 01:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to be a useful entry for an encyclopedia to have, even if it needs improving. Bob talk 13:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep (even discounting all the WP:SPAs coming out of the woodwork on this one). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna's forthcoming studio album[edit]

Keep This is not a rumor. This album has been confirmed and it will be released on April 29, 2008. Wikipedia is a great source of information on material such as this, and it will be inconsistent and unfair to delete this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.15 (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not as if this album is a rumor! It is coming very soon - article will show album's development Poetics uk (talk) 03:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article just seems like a rumour mill and it should be recreated when the release date is confirmed along with a title. Surfer-boy94 (talk) 01:01, 01 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would say Keep for now and do a cleanup. Speculation and rumors should definitely be removed, but there are very, very few artists who can generate as much buzz about an upcoming album as this one (i.e. I believe it is notable enough). There seems to be a few good sources here and quite a number of news articles, although I would suspect much of this could be cut for now until an official announcement is made by either Madonna's official website and/or the site of her record label. Less dependence on Madonna fansites is badly needed. - eo (talk) 01:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with eo to Keep but get rid of all info without authoratative source. JKW111 (talk) 01:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a confirmed album coming in the near future (within two months) and deserves to have an article. The rumours could be shortened, but definitely keep confirmed information. Geoking66_talk 02:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP* The article is named FORTHCOMING album ! After the release: clean up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.172.247.82 (talk) 12:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are plenty of articles on Wikipedia about albums slated to be released in the near future.—DMWN (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP! Madonna is the most important artist in the world and many people wanna read informations about her next album. also, why delete??? thats not necessary! in addition the video for the first single is shooting now! the album coming in the next 10-12 weeks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.185.230.27 (talk) 23:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are several reliable sources in the article. Europe22 (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No name, no official release date... Unlike Janet and Mariah's new albums... Thankyoubaby (talk) 06:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Is this for real? The album comes out on April 29, 2008. Janet and Mariah had pages before a title was known, they were known as "forthcoming albums". This is a total waste of time. Of course the page should stay. 68.82.82.248 (talk) 08:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP* Madonna has stated that she is working on a new album at the cartoon movie premiere so keep the article. If your upset with vandalism and what not then suggest that the article be locked from edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.140.0.3 (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE Fails WP:NOT#CRYSTAL about as badly as is possible. If the album ever gets done, the article will have to be deleted. If not, it will be false. Maybe there's a point to this kind of speculation; if there is, that place is Madonna's own article. No matter what, the NAME of this article is hopelessly problematic. It cannot be allowed to exist under this name. Mangoe (talk) 23:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep its a very interesting article, even the speculation is interesting to read i think —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigtemplate (talk • contribs) 11:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP of course! look at the many confirmed references...!!! the delete discussion is totally stupid, sorry! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.185.204.30 (talk) 11:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEEEEEEEEEEP ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.185.204.30 (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All involved artists approved the facts.
KEEP! She has done the shooting for the video for the 1st single, and in about 2 months-maximum-the album is going to be released. Alecsdaniel 05:54 7 february 2008 (UTC)
Keep All involved artists approved the facts. --Red-Blue-White (talk) 10:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete as failing WP:RS, and therefore failing WP:V and WP:N. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pakalomattom Ayrookuzhiyil[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Qualify as WP:OR and Wikipedia is not a Genealogical entry directory. Thanks. Avinesh Jose T 09:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page because [as mentioned above]:

Note: This debate has been included in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/India. --Avinesh Jose T 09:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Tinucherian (talk) 06:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Tinucherian] : I ,Creator of the articles propose to sorting by Deletion sorting/Christianity , as The history of Pakalomattom is very much related to Indian Christianity and history - Seeking wider audience for unbiased opinions - Tinucherian (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep (Creator of the articles), I am denying / defending aganist the argument of WP:OR/NOR by the nominator as the contents are verifiable by lots of references given below . Requesting to Kindly Keep these pages .

Tinucherian (talk) 10:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I belive the notability / verfibility and importance of the article on Pakalomattom family is proved by the below details given.

Some of the Notable Pakalomattom family members in Wikipedia

Mar Thoma I His Grace Mar Thoma I Metropolitan first metropolitan bishop of the Indian Mar Thoma Church

Palakunnathu Mathews Mar Athanasios of the East] 1818-1877), was the head of Malankara Church which had its adherents in Travancore. Cochin and Malabar, states of India.

Abraham Malpan ,(1795- i845), was a distinguished reformer of the Malankara St.Thomas Suryani Church in Kerala, India

Mar_Thoma_II

Mar Thoma III

Mar Thoma V

Mar_Thoma_VI

Mar_Thoma_VII

Mar Thoma VIII

Mar Thoma IX

Cherian Philip Politician of India.

K. V. Simon (1883 - 1944) was a very famous Christian poet writing in Malayalam

References to Pakalomattom family are made in many other Wikipedia articles.

A few of them are :-

Nedumpally , Arattupuzha , Orethu Family , Saint_Thomas_Christians , Marth Mariam Church Kandanad– Ernakulam ,Archdeacon , Thomas the Apostle , Buddhism and Christianity

Internet References : Searching the Internet you will find thousands of articles relating to Pakalomattom / Pakalomattam family.Some of them are

http://www.indianchristianity.org/orthodox/forefathers.html

http://malankaraorthodoxchurch.in/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemid=

http://www.keralahistory.ac.in/family.htm

http://www.marthomasyrianchurch.org/heritage.htm

http://www.ayrookuzhiyil.org/

http://www.pakalomattamfamily.org/

http://www.indianembassy.org/new/NewDelhiPressFile/kerala_christianity.html

http://www.keralachurch.com/main_left_right.php?cmd=keralachristianity

http://sankaramangalamfamilyassociation.org/sankaramangalam_%20history.html

http://www.ponnattu.com/

http://groups.msn.com/tkkudumbayogam/

http://www.palakunnathu.org/history.html

http://www.saintgregorios.org/PARUMALA/History.htm

www.stgoc.org/files/ChurchHistory.pdf

http://www.gsbkerala.com/christ/christian.htm

http://www.poozhikala.org/Pages/History.asp

http://www.adangapurathu.com/history_1.htm

http://nasrani.net/2007/06/14/the-tomb-of-archdeacons-kuravilangadu/

http://syriacchristianity.org/bio/Pulikottil_I.htm

http://www.syrianchurch.org/MalankaraSyrianChurch/MalankaraHistory.htm

Note : References of books can also be given upon request or if needed.

Tinucherian (talk) 07:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The above article is a history itself . Please refer to also Pakalomattom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.163.178.119 (talk) 11:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC) Note for closing admin: this user appears to be Tinucherian (talk · contribs)[reply]

[Tinucherian]] Yes. This is me only. It happened because i was logged off automatically while writing this statement. Tinucherian (talk) 04:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR, WP:TONE, WP:N and WP:V. I tagged the secondary page 5 months ago now, and upon my tagging, the user Tinucherian removed the tags. I then restored them. The same action was taken upon the AFD being listed. I believe there is a place for these articles, but in no way in the way they are right now do they warrant a place on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of information of original thought. Since I tagged the page, no efforts have been made by the page's creators to improve the matters addressed, which I listed in detail on the talk page. Since there's an obvious lack of intention to bring the article inline with Wiki standards, I see no choice but to support deletion. --rm 'w a vu 11:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced. The article is completely unsourced. I have blanked most of it as a copyvio - it is lifted verbatim from a site that does not give a free license to Wikipedia - see http://www.ayrookuzhiyil.org/copyright.html. The material I deleted would be inappropriate for Wikipedia even if free as utterly unsourced and completely unencyclopedic in tone, structure, and content. However, (changing opinion - see below) the little I did leave would make an acceptable stub if it could be verified.Wikidemo (talk) 11:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Tinucherian] : I don't believe there is any copyright issues. I am the same author and the webmaster of the above said website and I have given rights for the content to be used in Wikipedia. Requesting Wikidemo to kindly revert the changes he had made until a consensus is made by Wikipedia community.

Tinucherian (talk) 07:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - all four "keep" opinions to date seem to have been offered by a single editor, the creator of the page. Wikidemo (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Tinucherian] : I reduced to only one Keep statement from me. Tinucherian (talk) 04:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Keep now that the article in this version is sourced and more encyclopedic. It still has a number of issues, and there seems to have been a lot of weirdness and gaming of this AfD. But that is not relevant to a decision to keep or delete. Assuming the offline sources given are legitimate and support the claims made, there is some real content there now, the subject seems to be notable, and the revised article overall is well beyond the threshold at which we would delete an article. Wikidemo (talk) 01:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete source it or lose it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (by nominator) The page size has been reduced to 1.7 mb now (it was 6.5 mb) by user:Tinucherian. Thanks.
--Avinesh Jose T 12:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Tinucherian] It was not done by me. I was done by one of the Admins ,Wikidemo. Requesting to Kindly restore it until the review is over. Tinucherian (talk) 05:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dear good admins , Before you make prejudiced movement for deletion, I request your kind attention of past record of the nominator User:Avineshjose who had been doing all these .

(removed bad faith personal attack, which has no place in an afd discussion) - Wikidemo (talk) 10:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Tinucherian] Apologies if anyone is offended Tinucherian (talk) 04:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Tinu, Can I point you o WP:CIVILITY. Youre comments here are very inflammatory towards Avin, calling him/her "cheap", calling his/her contributions "atrocities" and saying that he was in breach of WP:CANVAS, saying he was on an "advertising spree". This discussion is inappropriate for an AfD and trying to discredit one user who nominated an article doesn't turn the discussion around and suddenly improve the article or give it any sense of validity. It simply gives potential for people to give less creedance to a user, which is unfair as nobody is doing that to you. Any lack of credibility that you have garnered is purely by the actions you've taken in this discussion, and previous related discussions. I encourage you to work on these articles to try and achieve a high quality standard with original work based on secondary sources, not original research and not information directly copied from their respective sources. That is how Wikipedia has come into being, and I'd encourage you to redeem yourself and the articles by making them fit the mould. Maybe have a look at articles of a similar nature and see how they're structured, how the prose is written and how much content to leave in and more importantly, what's not notable enough to keep in there (listing ALL of the Pakalo families is a bit much; maybe list half a dozen of those who're highly notable, like famous people, or highly altruistic or those who're infamous, for one reason or another). If you find you could create this article in that way and provide several different sources that confirm each article of information within it, then it's worth keeping. Until then, this article has no place on Wikipedia. --rm 'w a vu 10:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Hi all,

I do accept my language is a bit inflammatory . But i hope you understand the frustration of a newbie Wikipedian who just loves wikipedia and is severly bitten by someone whose credibility is itself is in question whether he is doing so in good faith!

Comment I stand by my request to keep my two articles Pakalomattom and Pakalomattom Ayrookuzhiyil on Wikipedia .
A simple search on wikipedia itself will refer to the importance of these articles
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=pakalomattom&fulltext=Search]

This will help you understand the highly notability of Pakalomatton family members in India.
A search of Pakalomattom on Google gave a whooping 1680 results !!!
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4ADBF_enUS225IN230&q=pakalomattom+&btnG=Search
Hope i have proved my point !!!
Tinucherian (talk) 11:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I search my surname, Maurice, I achieve 67,500,000 google results. When I look at the page, it's simply a disambiguatio page to around 25 - 35 people on Wikipedia. There's no history indicated as to where they came from, how they came from northern Africa and ploughed through Spain only to settle in France and try to convert French people to Islam, but were not successful. In fact, I would venture a guess that there's no version of that story told on Wikipedia, despite being a factual occurrence (with lots of omissions, mind you). This obviously affected everything to do with my bloodline, but I'm content with the story not being told here, because the fact is, it's not globally noteworthy. It didn't have a profound effect on the world and still doesn't, and ilkely never will. There are wikia that are designed for giving genealogical family history, but this is not one. --rm 'w a vu 13:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply A quality of a good internet user is the ability to identify and narrow down to what is a good and relavant search engine result. Trying to search my surname cherian gave 320,000 results. that doesnt mean cherian is unique to cherian i am looking to search. Try search for napoleon bonaparte it gives 382,000 results , but you know there can be only one and only napoleon bonaparte !!! The same holds for the keyword Pakalomattom !!! I hereby iterate the fact all the Pakalomattom in wiki all related to same Pakalomattom. Please try do some research before giving any assumptions.

I request you kindly to consult anyone who have expertise in Indian church history to contributions of Pakalomattom / Pakolomattam family.

Tinucherian (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My sincere Apologies if I have/had offended anyone by my remarks. I was carried away by the feelings that the articles I have started , and which i believe is good enough to be in wiki, is being deleted . I request the kind admins and wikipedians to give a reasonable opinion based on the evidences I have put forward here . I will continue to contribute with my humble works in future also to the betterment of Wikipedia.

Tinucherian (talk) 07:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep The content of the 2 articles seems to be encyclopedic in nature and holds good to be on Wikipedia. The history of Pakalomattom familes is well known in and Kerala and india .Tibutibu (talk) 09:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Note to the closing crat or admin: Tibutibu has only one edit: this one. It's likely this is sock puppetry. I don't wish to assert who I believe is doing this, but if a checkuser would check, I believe we'll find that it's an established user trying to bolster !votes, or even a meatpuppet. --rm 'w a vu 09:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- [Tinucherian] If this entry is suspected to be a sock puppet , Kindly do the needful to verify so that it leaves no room for doubt!!! Admins , please verify the IP and location. Tinucherian (talk) 15:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep this site, Pakalomattom familes is well known in and Kerala and india, and also Pakalomattom familes is a strong part of Christian history of Kerala. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasdanielreji (talk • contribs) 10:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC) — Thomasdanielreji (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Strongly keep this site. A well known family from Kerala in India that has a prominent part in Christian history of that state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.102.0.108 (talk) 10:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if it hasn't entered into any reference in Malayalam (it hasn't) it simply is beyond the pale of notability. 14:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.91.253.37 (talk) — 59.91.253.37 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

[Tinucherian] Please Tell me how do you want references in Malayalam ??

Tinucherian (talk) 14:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.154.215.169 (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Pakalomattom familes are one of the ancient families of Kerala. Its history and contributions to Indian christianity is well known. Admins should take the help of someone who has expertise in indian christianity before taking any further action. - Ginu George , Kuwait —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.154.215.169 (talk) 17:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC) — 78.154.215.169 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Strongly keep Pakalomattom Family has a great tradition and grapevine spread all over the World, It has links to many who are emotionally attached to the details provided herin, hence "Strongly Keep" Thomas Philip (Filgy), Bangalore

Strongly keep Pakalomattom is an ancient, kerala-based Christian family with deep-rooted history and tradition and that's what the wiki illustrates. Hence "stronly keep" Ajit Mathew, London —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.246.143 (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC) — 86.21.246.143 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Strongly keep I would like to put in my two cents and say you'all should keep these articles in the wikipedia. Samuel (talk) 00:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly keep. Pakalomattom is a long-established Christian family line in Kerala. The information in this wiki is highly relevant to all those who might want to research Christian families engaged in Church history in Kerala, India. It would be plain wrong to delete such information from Wikipedia. Ravi Arapurakal (Arapurakal), Princeton, NJ USA —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arapurakal (talk • contribs) 03:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC) — Arapurakal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Strongly keep I am aganist deletion of these two articles. Admins should revert the changes by Pakalomattom Ayrookuzhiyil by Wikidemo atleast until the review is over, otherwise what is the review without the specimen ?? - Jinu Jacob, Bangalore

Obviously there's been a bit of an external spam by somebody to illicit such a response as this, leading me to believe meatpuppetry is at play here. --rm 'w a vu 05:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is believed that the User:Tinucherian is using different socs (including annonym ip's and new sock id created) to comment side with him. The user:Philiptiju is a sockpuppet of this user (admins, please verify) who is currently involved in this article's editing. The user User:Tinucherian has threatened me in my talk page which cannot be justified and not in accordance with our policy As I understood from his talk page he is standing nearer to block stage. But no regret from this user and he is keep on involved in bad faith. --Avinesh Jose T 06:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ReplyUser_talk:Avineshjose is misdirecting Wikipedians to validate his claim! Avinesh claims that I have threatened him is absolutely false. I requested him not to scare of new bies to Wikipedia by his eagerness to move articles to AFDThis is my comment]. User_talk:Avineshjose was habitul person on putting lots of articles to AFD ,Please refer to his contributions and Archived Usertalks Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kaimal. Anyways I had already apolgised for my remarks .

On his second thing , I am not using any socks. user:Philiptiju happens to be my brother staying with me and has his opinion of his own. Nevertheless. user:Philiptiju has not even interfered in this discussion , which dismisses his claim that I am canvasing.

My action of adding this discussion to various AFD sorting pages like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christianity and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 February 4 MYSELF seeking opionions blatently shows that I am NOT canvassing for favourable opinions but seeking honest and unbaised opionions.

- Tinucherian (talk) 07:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tinucherian commented: It doesnt make you happy when ur baby , noursished for long ,is killed by someone. You have absolutely no right to speak about my baby. And please do not put my baby’s name in between. Note: I am not misdirecting Wikipedians. A majority has already commented your article to Delete. And only socks and annoyms are commenting it to strongly keep. You have accused me in numerous things in my talk page, which I don’t want to comment at all.
-- Avinesh Jose T 07:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avinesh Jose is interpreting it wrongly or it is just uglyness of mis-communication.For heavens sake , dont interpret Ur baby meaning Avinash's baby !! I was refering to our own articles as "ur own baby" . I meant who would like if somebody kills your articles after nourishing it for long. I had stopped personal references and Avinesh Jose is again dragging me to this. Please refrain from any more personal comments like this and concentrate on this review. It is a request.

Tinucherian (talk) 07:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dont interpert favourable opinions to your stand as legitimate and Non-favourable opinions to as non-legitimate and socks. This is just not fair. Be sportive ! Finally please Dont try to bait others to moving me into blocking.It is a request. Whatsoever happened let us make constructive contributions to Wiki . Wikipedia is for ALL and those who love it.! - Tinucherian (talk) 08:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sock case on this AfD has been reported by diffrent admins. Not by me first time (as you can see in this discussion above). It is good that you've changed your attitude, finally. be supportive and constructive (read this also: WP:FIVE). you also commented: Please Dont try to bait others to moving me into blocking. Today morning when I logged in after 2 days, I saw that you have been warned by user Wikidemo of your disruptive edits in your talk page. Thanks. --Avinesh Jose T 09:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to your comments on canvassing, You need to look at the policy again and look at the section on Stealth canvassing:

Because it is less transparent than on-wiki notifications, the use of email or other off-wiki communication to notify editors is discouraged unless there is a significant reason for not using talk page notifications. Depending on the specific circumstances, sending a notification to a group of editors by email may be looked at more negatively than sending the same message to the same group of people on their talk pages.

By tipping off a bunch of people you know offline that this article faces deletion and that you want them to support it being kept doesn't add anything. This isn't a vote, it's a discussion to measure the value of the article to wikipedia, in all of the policies on notability, verifiability, quality and o course the appropriateness of its content to be included in an encyclopedia. Right now, this article doesn't meet any of the necessary policies and having your friends come here and support it being kept is no better than sockpuppetry. It's what we call (and as I said before) meatpuppetry. If you really want these articles to be kept (and I said this before too) improve them to the point we'd be happy to keep them. Read the Christianity articles, Buddhism, Islam, and other family articles such as British Royal Family and your article would fit somewhere in between all of these subject matter-wise, but it certainly does not meet the standards of any of these right now. Not by a long shot. Oh and as a side note, the notability of the people of Pakalomattom are not near the notability of the royal family, so I wouldn't suggest having an article even half the length of that one. --rm 'w a vu 09:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply : If you think Royality is the only criteria of Notability for families to be in Wikipedia , I can't comment anything more. I again iterate the fact that , the notability of these 2 articles, be consulted , anyone who you are OK with , who have expertise in Indian Christian History. I may not know about African or North American royalty , that doesnt mean I judge them as not notable. Tinucherian (talk) 10:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are definitely families of note that aren't royal. I'm not exclusively talking about notability, I'm talking about quality here. These articles are very poorly worded, they have non-notable information and their structures leave much to be desired also. Notability is another matter altogether. I don't think they're notable. Being that I do happen to know a little about the Indian Christian history, I can say that the family is known, but knowledge and notability are different things. Read through (thoroughly) the notability criteria. It says clearly that just because there's a high number of something or even because another article like it exists, doesn't grant it a golden ticket. Each article is assessed on its merits and these articles are not near meritable to keep. One thing you could try to do for the moment, rather than argue with us, is to improve the articles. Give them a "compelling prose". Make them accessible, easy and desirable to read. Follow wikiprotocols and keep your fingers crossed that I'm wrong and that there is a place for these articles on wikipedia. --rm 'w a vu 10:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Cherian. strongly suggest to keep the page. It has been very useful to know the history of Christianity and the ancient families in Kerala. If you delete this page, you are deleting some valueable information on Church History in Kerala. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.215.206.16 (talk) 07:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Susan: Strongly keep this info as it will be useful for anyone interested in knowing about Chritianity in South India. A good effort has been made to collect and put up this information. Deleting it will be a loss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.88.234.45 (talk) 10:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC) — 202.88.234.45 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — 202.88.234.45 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. No appropriate sources provided as required by WP:V and recommended by WP:RS. (This includes earlier versions of the article which provided several external links that were also not suitable as source material.) --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 18:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly keep. I agree with the admin that this article needs improvement and source citations. The author may not have a research background to provide these. Kindly grant some time for the improvement of this article to meet encyclopedic standards. Suggestions and constructive comments are welcome as I contribute my bit. The pakalomattom family is a sizeable portion of the Syrian Christian community - which, according to church historians, is a living fossil of the ancient Nestorian church. Some even claim links with the ancient Jewish church, as is evident from the sites of Knanaya Syrian Christians of Kerala who have maintained endogamy for the past 17 or so centuries. I shall strive to provide citations for these. Thanks in advance!

I would request Western readers to kindly keep this in mind as they deal with Oriental people and their systems of knowledge. Oriental societies were mostly - till recently - reliant on oral transmission of knowledge. Those who are educated now along western lines understand the need for citations and sources, etc. Much of our significant history is still unwritten. It was after the arrival of the British in India that our histories began to be written! I remember the words of Robert Eric Frykenberg (Professor Emeritus of History, Univ of Wisconsin) who answered a charge that there are no documented historical evidences to prove that St Thomas came to India. He asked, "Where is the documented historical proof for Peter's arrival in Rome?" (See his book "Christianity in India: Beginnings to the Present") Philip.eapen (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Philip.eapen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - My understanding is that the Saint Thomas Christians (like many Indian communities, and also Christian Communities in the Middle East) were endogamous for so long that they have virtually become a separate ethnicity. The traditions (even if unhistoric) of the Saint Thomas Christians as to their origin are potentially suitable for an article in WP. The nominated article contains a number of references, so that this cannot be dismissed as purely WP:OR. The problem is that there are at least two other articles on this group. These should probably be merged. This article, at present displays considerable problems in that it is trying to be several things at once: it is trying to be (1) a family history (2) an account of the origins of the Syriac Christians of India. I do not know enough to determine whether the family are notable. If the claims made above about the family are correct, they should be set out in an article on the family. It would help of citations were formatted correctly, using the markup material that appears below the edit window, but that is an issue of detail. I think that the answer is to keep for now, but with the threat of a further AFD procedure, if the specialist editors cannot produce a series of decent articles:
- Saint Thomas Christians seems OK,
- Syrian Malabar Nasrani seems OK, though I am not convinced that separate articles are required on an ethnic community and a religious community that are essentially the same.
- Perhaps a fuller article on the origins of the Saint Thomas Christians, discussing their own traditions as to this and scholarly views on the veracity of these.
- Perhaps one article on the Pakalomattom, focusing on prominent nasranis from that family. In saying this, I bear in mind that there are family articles based on the titles of British peers.

I hope this provides guidelines on which the opponent(s) of this AFD nomination can work to resove the issues concerned. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Syrian Christian community in Kerala has a major role in the socio-economic ladder in Kerala, especially in education and health sector. ~~Pakalomattam family is also quite prominent in Kottayam district of Kerala.~~ (The family (only Pakalomattom) is quite famous among some people in Kottayam district[^{modified comment added.--Avinesh Jose T 05:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)}). The question is that there are no proper-third-party independent reliable sources available to keep the article in WP per its policy. This is also the reason why a famous family article i.e 'Kolath' check this deletion review deleted, though they are prominent in Pathanamthitta district of Kerala. Can anyone provide at least one such source about this family? A google search redirected me to junk, self & blog pages with no useful informations. --Avinesh Jose T 05:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.indianchristianity.org/orthodox/forefathers.html

"Mar Thoma I was the successor of Archdeacon Geevarghese pakalomattom who was the Archdeacon of Malankara Syrian church during and immediately after the Udaymperoor Synod (1599). (Archdeacon Pakalomattom Thomas)... "

"Mar Thoma IV consecrated a member of the pakalomattom family as Mar ThomaV."

http://malankaraorthodoxchurch.in/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemid=

" In India St.Thomas founded the church and appointed prelates to continue apostolic ministry in the church. It is believed that the prelates were appointed from for ancient families namely, Pakalomattom, Sankarapuri, Kalli, and Kaliankal. Gradually the Pakalomattom family gained prominence in the ministry and chief prelates of the community where hailed from that family....In his answer, he said, that from 335 AD for 1308 years ie. Till the coonan cress oath, the church was ruled by the Archdeacons of Pakalomattom family. He also said that after the coming of the Portuguese the church had, besides him six Metrans and one metropolitan."

http://www.keralahistory.ac.in/family.htm

"169 Ayiroorkuzhiyil Kudumba Charithram Committee 2005"

http://www.marthomasyrianchurch.org/heritage.htm

" Palakkunnathu Abraham MalpanRecognized as the catalyst behind the Reformation, Abraham Malpan was born in 1796 (Malayalam Era 971) in Palakunnathu family which is believed to be a branch of the renowned Pakalomattam family. "

http://www.indianembassy.org/new/NewDelhiPressFile/kerala_christianity.html

"St. Thomas established seven Christian communities or churches in Kerala. They are in Cranganore, Paravur(Kottakavu), Palayoor, Kokkamangalam, Malayattoor, Niranam, Chayal (Nilackal) and Kollam (Quilon). Throughout Kerala, one can find Christian families that are proud to claim descent from ancestors who were baptized by Apostle Thomas. Sankarapuri, Pakalomattom and Maliekal are the prominent ones. .... "

http://www.keralachurch.com/main_left_right.php?cmd=keralachristianity

"St. Thomas established seven Christian communities or churches in Kerala. They are in Cranganore, Paravur (Kottakavu), Palayoor, Kokkamangalam, Malayattoor, Niranam, Chayal (Nilackal) and Kollam (Quilon). Throughout Kerala, one finds Christian families that are proud to claim descent from ancestors the Apostle baptized. Sankarapuri, Pakalomattom and Maliekal are the prominent ones. ..."

http://www.syrianchurch.org/MalankaraSyrianChurch/MalankaraHistory.htm

"The high caste Brahmin families that adorned Christianity were mainly from Pakalomattom, Shankarapuri, Kalli and Kaliangala families and members from them were ordained as priests or chieftains for the community."

http://nasrani.net/2007/06/14/the-tomb-of-archdeacons-kuravilangadu/

"Kuravilangadu has a unique place in the history of the Church of Malabar. The temporal administration of the church was conducted by Archdeacons who were very influential in the society. It is believed that the Archdeacons have been descended from the Pakalomattam family. The mortal remain of a few Archdeacons are still preserved at the Pakalomattam Chapel. "

Note : Detailed history of the family is said in Pakalomattom and Ayrookuzhiyil family websites mentioned at top of this page...

Tinucherian (talk) 07:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have already provided all these links above in this AfD & subsequently commented. You are still repeating your postings.
--Avinesh Jose T 08:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have removed several of the internal links to Pakalomattom that are not sourced to reliable sources. Relata refero (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, colour me genuinely surprised. I saw this originally as bog-standard genealogical linkspam based on vanity family websites. Strangely, it isn't. Reliable sources abound that this particular family is notable. Starting with the legendary Edgar Thurston, who in Castes and Tribes of Southern India has the following lines: "The Metram assumed the title of Mar Thomas; He belonged to the family that traced its descent from the Pakalomattom family, held in high respect and great veneration as one of the Brahmin families the members of which were supposed to have been converted and ordained as priests by the apostle himself. Members of the family were supposed to have held the Metranship until 1815, whereupon the line became extinct." There are several other reliable sources from reputable publishers that back this up. Note that no reliable sources indicate the line has continued since 1815. Neverthless, the family itself is highly notable, ~~and so I strongly recommend keeping' the article~~. Relata refero (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More is clear now. Clearly we have individuals from another family, the highly non-notable Ayrookuzhiyils, trying to piggyback on the undoubted notability of the Pakalomattoms. The only source for any connection between the two on the entire internet is a book of family history published by the "Pakalomattom Family History Board, 2001". Right. So move to Pakalomattom and nuke all references to the Ayrookuzhiyils, as well as the dense prose that repeats information in the St. Thomas Christians article. Relata refero (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I commented yesterday that Pakalomattom is quite well-known family in Kottayam district (The family (only Pakalomattom) is quite famous among some people in Kottayam district[^{modified comment added.--Avinesh Jose T 08:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)}, but I have no idea about the latter, i.e Ayrookuzhiyils to keep it as an encyclopedia article. --Avinesh Jose T 04:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Hi Avinesh, You had nominated both Pakalomattom and Pakalomattom Ayrookuzhiyil for AFD on questions of notablity and NOR .Now with lots of supporting stuff coming up and change tone of this discussion, it is good to see that now you have taken one step behind , saying that atleast history of Pakalomattom is known to everyone and is of value to Wiki.Appreciated.. Thanks !. Earlier you were alleging that all support of Pakalomattom was fake and sock , which became baseless until many 'notable' users also came forward in support. Just because you dont know something doesnt mean that you are right about it. Please open up your ears to what others have to say also and dont be prejudiced.It is a humble request. - Tinucherian (talk) 05:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors. I did not comment that history of Pakalomattom is known to everyone. I commented yesterday that the family (only Pakalomattom) is quite famous among some people in Kottayam district. Please don’t misapprehend my comments. Both articles were nominated as it was lacking sources and build up with a lot of original research. As the discussion progressing, supporters are always welcome to establish more references, remove unreferenced statements and that leads to the final consensus and decision making. That is how Wiki works and we assemble this project. Thanks. --Avinesh Jose T 06:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind comments and suggestions. Please note that Ayrookuzhiyil family is a subset (or a branch) of Pakalomattom family. Therefore, there is no question of the former riding piggyback on the latter. Moving this article to the Pakalomattom page may be okay. >> Validation by reliable research is essential. However, most people might agree with me when I say that primary sources of information precede the arrival of secondary and tertiary sources. In a country such as India, much of sociological or historical data is locked up as primary data, untouched by researchers. It is when socially or historically important topics are brought to light that researchers focus their attention on these to dig out and validate claims of truth. India is therefore a very fertile ground for research. Before we relegate to history's waste bin the small clusters of primary data that keep cropping up, let us give researchers a chance.Philip.eapen (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Strongly keep" "very valuable information for the family members and the public." "santhosh" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.88.73.94 (talk) 01:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC) — 59.88.73.94 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment As Philip.eapen said , Ayrookuzhiyil is a subset of the great Pakalomattom Family , of which the former started as a seperate stream in 17th century (1684 AD).

We Indians, mostly are reliant on oral transmission of knowledge. Please note that the much of early history of india was recorded by World travellers than Indian historians themselves. The great epic of Ramayana was transferred orally for hundreds of generations.

The history of Ayrookuzhiyil and its connection to the greater family of Pakalomattom is well known in this part of the world. Efforts of recording family history in Kerala began only in this century. It should be noted that almost last 10 generations of Pakalomattom Ayrookuzhiyil family is now recored to books. Infact hand written manuscripts and recordings began in early part of this century by forefathers and it has become sources of information for the present book publications and websites.

The recent steps of history recordings are :

1) Pakalomattom Ayrookuzhiyil Kudumbacharitram Part I ( 2001) : Edited by Dr. Koshy Abraham .

2) Ayiroorkuzhiyil Kudumba Charithram , Kudumba Charithram Committee (2005) . This is archived in Kerala Council for Historical Research [KCHR] (It is an autonomous institution committed to scientific research in history and social sciences. Funded by the Ministry of Cultural Affairs, Government of Kerala ) Ref : http://www.keralahistory.ac.in/family.htm , see Book No 169.

3)Pakalomattom Ayrookuzhiyil website http://www.ayrookuzhiyil.org/]

Please also Note Ayrookuzhiyil is also written as Ayiroorkuzhiyil , Ayrurkuzhiyil , Ayrookuzhi, Ayrukuzhy , Ayrookuzhy, Ayrukuzhiyil , Ayroorkuzhiel etc. This happens when names of Non-english names are translated by generations. Pakalomattom itself is written as Pakalomattom , Pakalomattam , Pakalomattathil etc.

I am still OK with merging of Pakalomattom Ayrookuzhiyil sub-family article to the main artcile of Pakalomattom , but independent research and udpation will also be allowed if there are two artciles. Soon articles of importance of other sub-families of Pakalomattom will come to Wiki in future , hence it is advisable to keep this as two artciles to avoid clutter. Otherwise , there is No need of seperate articles for India and states of india like Kerala , Karnataka etc.

Please also note the history of Pakalomattom is more than 2000 years old and Pakalomattom Ayrookuzhiyil is around 350 years old starting from Idicula Tharakan , the Doyen of the Ayrookuzhiyil Family .

Tinucherian (talk) 03:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Independent research is never allowed. All accessible, independent reliable sources indicate that the Pakalomattom lineage died out completely after 1815. All the above are non-reliable family histories. Relata refero (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Admins : There was a sudden deletion of Pakalomattom from many Wiki articles !! Especially when these artciles are given as tangible evidences to this AFD.

K. V. Simon :- [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=K._V._Simon&curid=1678104&diff=189311203&oldid=187496507]

Abraham Malpan :- [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abraham_Malpan&curid=8550250&diff=189310928&oldid=188351708]

I dont want to comment who is behind this and its intention.

Another noticable recent activity is

There was a merger proposal on one of my articles Coonen_Cross_Oath to Coonan_Cross_Oath. User:Avineshjose added [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coonen_Cross_Oath&diff=189430273&oldid=189316856]

With just one proposal by a user , See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coonen_Cross_Oath&action=history, User:Avineshjose just deleted the article [[Coonen_Cross_Oath and redirected to Coonan_Cross_Oath ! Admins, please note the activities. I dont want to comment further on this

Tinucherian (talk) 04:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the editing history of K. V. Simon & Abraham Malpan shows, there is nothing wrong in the recent editing (done by User:Relata refero). Regarding Coonen cross merge issues, I re-directed it per an established User:Relata refero's suggestion. Details are here. If what I did was wrong, admins may revert my edits. User:Tinucherian, please do not simply drag other issues into this AfD which is not a constructive work. Thanks. --Avinesh Jose T 05:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I dont want to comment at this point , why specific articles by myself are targeted by you. I can give another 100 references , where it is also referred to as Coonen cross. You didnt allow a consensus to be made by many users. Besides mergeing doesnt mean , deleting one and redirecting to another. The data of both should be merged to the retaining artcile. What you are trying is just destruction /loss of data in Wiki.

Some of the Proofs of Abraham Malpan related to Pakalomattom

http://www.marthomasyrianchurch.org/heritage.htm ]" Palakkunnathu Abraham MalpanRecognized as the catalyst behind the Reformation, Abraham Malpan was born in 1796 (Malayalam Era 971) in Palakunnathu family which is believed to be a branch of the renowned Pakalomattam family. "

N.M.Mathew, (2007), History of the Malankara Marthoma Church, Vol II (Malayalam) page 88.

Mathew, N.M. (2003) History of Palakunnathu Family.

Mar Thoma Sabha Directory. (1999). Page 82-89.

Tinucherian (talk) 05:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(you commented) why specific articles by myself are targeted by you.

Tinucherian, this will be my last comment to you: it is your clear misunderstanding that I am targeting you. Up to now, I did not have any issues with you. Please drive out any wrong imaginary feelings on my work that I’m doing against you. Wikipedia:Assume good faith. As a wikipedian, let me do my duty and you also. Thanks. --Avinesh Jose T 06:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see how this article can survive in its current form. It is not a suitable topic given the very limited references. Wikipedia is not a genealogy. The Syriac Christians of India certainly are notable enough to be covered in Wikipedia, but a profusion of articles on individual families is not the way to go. The work by Koshy Abraham which is cited looks to be an unpublished work of genealogy. We went through some similar issues with the deletion debates about the Arbuthnot family a few months ago. The use of a work of genealogy was strongly criticized in that case, even though it was a published book that was found in libraries and was available online. (Just one of the many Arbuthnot discussions is in the archive of WP:COIN). EdJohnston (talk) 16:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yea, the DRV is here. --Avinesh Jose T 07:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per EdJohnston. Ism schism (talk) 21:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The question of this discussion is the need of deletion / retaining of 2 articles by the Nominator User:Avineshjose :- Pakalomattom and Pakalomattom Ayrookuzhiyil . The notability of Pakalomattom is confirmed by the nominator himself to an extent. See above : The Syrian Christian community in Kerala has a major role in the socio-economic ladder in Kerala, especially in education and health sector. Pakalomattam family is also quite prominent in Kottayam district of Kerala. Here we are taking about a family that is unquestionably has a history of over 2000 years and a sub-family of this which started to flow as a seperate stream since 3-4 centuries ago. Like many others said in this discussion , there is a lot of difference between histrory recordings between the West and Eastern part of the world. Here we are used to oral transmission of knowledge and histroy over generations. Recordings of family histories were started only very recently - may be 2 centuries ago max. The Pakalomattom Ayrookuzhiyil History by Dr.Koshy is available is a published book and available even in libraries. Please note that Dr. Koshy is famous church and family historian with many books to his credit. The second book on Ayrookuzhiyil sub- family is Ayiroorkuzhiyil Kudumba Charithram , Kudumba Charithram Committee (2005) . This is archived in Kerala Council for Historical Research (KCHR) (It is an autonomous institution committed to scientific research in history and social sciences. Funded by the Ministry of Cultural Affairs, Government of Kerala, India ) Ref : http://www.keralahistory.ac.in/family.htm , see Book No 169.

I am requesting more authentic comments from Wikiadmins from this part of the world as they have more knowledge about the history here. ((helpme)) - Tinucherian (talk) 04:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Try some good manners. They wont hurt your cause. Good luck. Ism schism (talk) 05:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply : With all due respect to you , Sir, Let me ask what is not good behaviour above from me ? All I was asking is those who has knowledge about it to ALSO comment about it so that we have a fair discussion. I am NOT seeking any favourable opinion of my stand ! Anyways I thankq for your interest / comments and participation in this discussion.

- Tinucherian (talk) 05:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I mean no disrespect. Good luck. Ism schism (talk) 05:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have expressed an interest in having an editor with local knowledge, may I suggest Blnguyen, since he's interested in India and Buddhism. It's not exactly a match made in heaven to this article, but he's got religious contributions and Indian knowledge, leading me to believe he'd be able to provide objective, but fact-based and knowledgable contributions here. Other than him, there's a range of contributors at WP:INDIA and WP:KERALA (see the users listed here and here). I genuinely want this argument to go fairly, and I believe making a comment on the discussion page for Kerala, you may find others willing to contribute, though you may find some will confirm that the article doesn't belong on Wikipedia (especially considering, as discussed, Wikipedia is not to be used as a listing of family genealogies). --rm 'w a vu 12:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of where its archived, a privately published family history is not a reliable source. When that family history makes a claim that directly contradicts Edgar Thurston and several other reliable sources, it is particularly inadmissible under WP:REDFLAG. The Pakalomattoms are notable. The Ayrookuzhiyils are not. Sadly, the former have died out and there is no reliable source by our standards indicating a connection to the Ayrookuzhiyils. As such, this article needs to be deleted, and the Pkalomattom article needs to have all references to the Ayrookuzhiyils removed.

I am relatively familiar with the area under consideration. Relata refero (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Hi Relata, Thanks for your participation /interest in this discussion.With due respect , I should say that Your non-acceptance of Oral traditions of knowledge in this part of the world questions your 'relative familiarity' on this area.

So Now do you accept to at least retain the article of Pakalomattom and convinced of its notability and verifiability ?

- Tinucherian (talk) 09:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prophetcity[edit]

Delete No notability established. No hint in google search. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Patent nonsense. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable.Bless sins (talk) 04:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball delete as bollocks, borderline patent nonsense.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete per HisSpaceResearch. -Verdatum (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep as meeting WP:MUSIC (charted). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Beat Goes On (Madonna song)[edit]

Delete or Redirect - Another article about a non-notable song by Madonna which should be deleted or redirected to Madonna. See also - Candy Shop (Madonna song). Surfer-boy94 (talk) 01:19, 01 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - It should not be redirected to Madonna, but to the album: Madonna's forthcoming studio album. matt91486 (talk) 16:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Thankyoubaby (talk) 06:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Notable" is an opinion. The fact of the matter is that the song is exists. Also, the song was a airplay hit in some clubs and charted in the top 20 in Brazil. Quite frankly this nomination for deletion is ridiculous. —DMWN (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For reasons listed by above user. The real avenger (talk) 08:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : The song was charted in some charts. Europe22 (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Red-Blue-White (talk) 11:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep due to meeting WP:MUSIC requirement of "has had a charted hit on any national music chart." ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry (band)[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. Top peak was somewhere in the 70s with no sources to prove that. Non notable what-so-ever. Undeath (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep So, were they formed in 1998, as the article says, or did they peak in the 70's, and the AfD nom says? References badly needed to establish something, anything, about this topic. Beeblbrox (talk) 20:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWhen I say peaked, I meant the song peaked at somewhere in the 70s. Having one hit is not notable enough in my opinion. Especially when it did not even get within the top 20.Undeath (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The only claim to notability in the article is having a #78 hit in Australia, but this suggests it reached #46, which is more of a genuine hit. No album, nothing else to suggest notability. No coverage found. I'm guessing they would have at least received some coverage in Australia.--Michig (talk) 20:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as per Michig. There's enough to suggest some chart success and touring activity, although clearly the article needs work. Bondegezou (talk) 17:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think that top 50 is a pretty decent standard for what a hit is and as such this band is notable per WP:MUSIC. SorryGuy Talk 06:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete as failing WP:N. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mattia de martino[edit]

Delete as per WP:N and WP:BIO. A google search shows that he acted in one single movie[17]. IMDB shows that he acted in a supporting or minor role[18]. Based on all those issues, nominating this article for deletion. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 16:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, appears to fail WP:BIO. One film is not enough.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete as unsourced. There is no agreement on whether the subject meets the "major radio station" criterion of WP:MUSIC, but there is also no counterevidence against the claim that the article cannot be sourced from independent sources, and thus the article fails WP:V. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DJ River[edit]

Non-notable internet-only DJ. Precious Roy (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe he is non-notable, but him being internet-only is the interesting part. His origins stem back from the times where internet-only electronic music was both rare and of low-bitrate (see article). I vote to keep article. Fire (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 17:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; WP:INTERESTING is not an argument to notability and verifiability. We need to see sources, especially for a topic like this where the subject sounds distinctly amateur and unrecognized. I would reverse my opinion if any clearly independent, reliable, in-depth sources are presented. I searched briefly and found only self-provided profiles and individual (blog-like) comments. Mango juice^talk 16:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the applicable notability guideline is WP:BAND, and subject meets the following criteria:
- "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network."

JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you referring to the internet radio station of questionable notability? Definitely not a "major radio network". Additionally, claim of frequent play on that website is not sourced. Precious Roy (talk) 01:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What?' Digitally Imported has over 60,000 concurrent listeners. How is that not major? As for sources for play on DI.FM, did you look? here, here, here, here. And for another internet radio network, last.fm: here and here. Remember he is a self-described internet-only DJ.... logically, if you acknowledge the possibility that there could exist a notable internet-only DJ, you have to admit that you could not find sources documenting regular "airplay" (bitplay?) for such DJ that were not on or about internet radio websites. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I went to the DI website and found no search capability. And that "60,000 listeners" figure is according to the station itself, not a third-party source like Arbitron. I can't follow the logic of your last sentence but I know how admins like you are so I'll just leave now. Precious Roy (talk) 10:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Precious Roy here. 60,000 listeners is not nearly the kind of audience a national network would reach: According to some free stuff from Arbitron, national radio networks have a reach of around 70% among Americans, which would average easily to millions of listeners each. Mango juice^talk 18:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Placed in rotation nationally on a network that has millions of listeners would not equate to listened-to simultaneously by millions of people. It means that an individual radio station would play it, then another one, then another one. and so on. This would probably equate to under a thousand at a time, (that's my own synthesis) but repeated in different locales frequently. The spirit of this is that a lot of people would be familiar with it. A 60K instantaneous listener-load network would provide the same huge exposure that that guideline is describing; and hence a lot of poeple would be familiar with it, IMHO. Perhaps a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music) about whether online radio networks meet the intention of this guideline, would be appropriate? JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're trying to stretch the guideline, and I don't think it should stretch. After all, the real question is whether or not there is source material we can use to write a reasonable article here. Guidelines like the one you are trying to use here give evidence that a certain subject is likely to be sourceable, but the more we stretch the less likely that is. In this case, please, try to find some sources. I came up blank, when you discount individual fan posts on blogs and forums, and his self-posted profiles. Mango juice^talk 06:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not trying to stretch the guideline, I am trying to apply it. Please participate in the separate discussion I have started at the project talk page I described above. Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(music)#Non-broadcast radio networks. JERRY ^talk _contribs 07:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another point: your sources only show that DI radio has at some point featured this guy, which isn't the same thing as being in rotation. Can you source that he is or was actually in rotation at some point? Mango juice^talk 13:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm... we can only accept radio networks that maintain searchable archived playlists? I doubt there are many that do. The link I provided shows one time when he was featured... meaning an entire show slot was dedicated to him, and he was interviewed, his bio and work was criticized, etc. As far as play.... all we have is ooodles of DI.fm blogs, where people talk about "I just listened to DJ River..." frequently over a long period of time. Blogs are not by themselves a reliable source; but logically would all these people be talking on DI.fm blogs and forums about having listened to him there, if he was not played there? Try a focussed google search, like this. JERRY ^talk _contribs 16:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Published playlists wouldn't be a good source. Here's the kind of thing we should be looking for: [19] -- that's an article that talks about someone being in rotation, "heavy rotation on VH1" in this case. As for lots of individual non-reliable comments, the community has repeatedly rejected using that kind of thing as a source. Mango juice^talk 19:05, 2 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, trialsanderrors (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An aside. I just put the Afd tag back on the article Keeper | 76 16:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops... oldafd tag removed as well. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the spirit of WP:MUSIC, and arguably by the letter as well--I strongly dispute that the clause regarding radio networks was intended to include online-only stations, and either way that's pretty weak as the only claim of notability for an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --Flesh-n-Bone 19:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a vote. What is your reasoning? Mango juice^talk 20:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because I think he is notable and passes WP:N. --Flesh-n-Bone 10:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'll be adding references to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" to the article, then, I trust? --Stormie (talk) 08:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently at a break and not editing, so I don't really bother adding and taking out things. --Flesh-n-Bone 13:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of independent sources to establish notability, fails WP:V. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I fail to understand how anyone could possibly vote delete. The article itself asserts notability, further notability has been presented, and the deletion arguments are in blatant disregard of WP:DEGRADE. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 23:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of even one reliable, independent source? That's my argument. Mango juice^talk 03:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me one policy that says notability can *only* be asserted through sources. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 04:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about the part of WP:V which reads "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it"? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about all the elements of WP:MUSIC that don't ask for sources, like "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network" - which applies to this. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 04:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Policy > guideline. And I've yet to see a single reliable source that proves that statement you just made? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Jerry, WP:DEGRADE, and an apparent disregard for a correct closure. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 02:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable sources, only claim of notability is being in rotation on an internet radio station which as Andrew Lenahan said, fails "the spirit of WP:MUSIC, and arguably by the letter as well", and which is itself completely lacking in reliable sources. --Stormie (talk) 08:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - I think DI's scale cannot be compared with a public broadcast radio station, especially considering the medium and the genre of music. I have yet to hear a single ambient/electronic radio station (Jazz doesn't count), and I live in a major city. Fire (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Struck bolding; duplicate comment (see top) Mango juice^talk 02:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, sorry. I thought I messed up my formatting when I typed it out. Fire (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- a point of fact that may be relevant here. Digitally Imported is not a single broadcast but rather has about 45 separate channels all playing different stuff; this is according to the article and their website. The 60 thousand simultaneous listeners number was for all channels combined: thus, we're talking about more like 1400 listeners at once for the average channel. Seemingly DJ River is being played mostly on only two of these channels: "Chillout" and "Lounge" (according to Jerry's targeted google search). Mango juice^talk 15:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even after some weeks of discussion no one has been able to come up with a single independent source. And about the content, let me repeat my comment from the talk page two weeks ago: A sentence like "DJ River's popularity stems from the fact that the tracks in his mixes are selected with great care, and often form a cohesive whole, with nearly-transparent transitions between tracks in a mix" is not only unfounded, but almost devoid of information - most good electronic music DJs select the tracks they play with care and try to create a continuous mix. Regards, High on a tree (talk) 23:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep, nomination withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Debora L. Spar[edit]

Delete as per WP:BIO. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 16:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - I am really really sorry. I misunderstood this article and thought his as the President of Barnard College Union of Columbia University :-(. You may notice that I always try to explain my nominations with policies and Google search result (where it is suitable). But, in this case I didn't mention anything but just WP:BIO because we had a debate last year on a university union president (See here) from where I got an idea that such persons are weak entity for WP unless he/she has other significant contributions for the society. That's why, I didn't go for a google search or in depth analysis with this article. A single word Union (my ghost assumption) misguided me. Once again I am extremely sorry and thanks to all of you for participating in this discussion. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 12:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spar has taught at harvard for twenty years. Her book The Baby Business was not only reviewed, it was discussed in feature articles in the New York Times and other general circulation periodicals. Now she has been named President of one of America's leading liberal arts colleges.

the articles is sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by American Clio (talk • contribs) 16:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This individual has authored three books (and co-authored a fourth), and has also written countless scholarly essays on the world of business. Please see Google Books at http://books.google.com/books?q=Debora+L.+Spar&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=np. Notability is quite obvious. (Mind meal (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Keep- meets notability requirements per WP:BIO as, like Mind Meal said, they have written numerous books and essays that have been published. She also has been discussed in articles for The New York Sun and The New York Times and has appeared on a number of US news shows. AngelOfSadness talk 21:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep President of Barnard College! no deletion rationale given. Seeing the many excellent nominations of this ed., and the speed at which he does them, i assume it was just an error. DGG (talk) 04:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep (closed by non-admin). RMHED (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Jovanović[edit]

Delete. Unverifiable content (biography of a footballer). He is notable enough to have a WP article as per it claims, but the question is verifiability. Google search failed to provide any information regarding this person. Serbian Wikipedian may have a close look here. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 16:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Google turns up some information, but not the best sources. Does suggest that there is more to be found ... An international sports directory might produce something? --Paularblaster (talk) 23:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep according to this source [20]. It needs some clean up though. Peanut4 (talk) 02:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per Peanut 4. GiantSnowman (talk) 11:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tim Q. Wells (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But hope someone expand it. Matthew_hk t c 21:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete as failing WP:N. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Horses MC[edit]

Delete. It fails at WP:N and also WP:ORG (If a club is considered as an organization). It seems to be a vanity article that fails to pass notability on WP. A Google search returns nothing. Note that there is a reputed bike producing company with the name but this article in noway is related to that one. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 15:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources. --DerRichter (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete per author request by blanking the page. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Patmore[edit]

This person does not satisfy the notability guidelines. he is the CEO of a small firm, which in turn is owned by a larger firm, and a video game designer. This entry could be merged into Surreal Software. Greswik (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect, as with the other co-founder (redirects to Surreal Software).--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: I have reverted a blanking by the only contributor. If this !vote ends with very few !votes, this may be seen as a request to delete from that editor? I have also left a question about it on the editors talk-page. Greswik (talk) 12:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merge and redirect to associate. Blueswan1967 (talk) 11:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Graphics Project '08[edit]

Delete Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day sums it up. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, barely an article at all really. Fails multiple policies and guidelines - WP:N, WP:V, WP:NFT, WP:NOR, possibly WP:COI.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not Sourceforge. Zetawoof_(ζ) 01:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Many things belong on Wikipedia. This article is not one of them. Yvh11a (Talk • Contribs) 07:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brian O'Mara[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. No sources to back up claims. Google searches yield no notable information. Undeath (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:V, the only page that comes up by searching for the actor's name and the name of the show he was on is the Wikipedia article.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the critera for entertainers in WP:BIO and there's no sources to back up the content and it seems that the info may not be WP:verifiable. AngelOfSadness talk 21:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

QMCSO[edit]

Speedy deletion was declined, this reads like a cut and paste from a Government website. It doesn't seem like an encylopedia article. Pollytyred (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete cut and paste of this. Technically I don't think the text is copyrighted, but that doesn't mean it should just be randomly dumped into WP either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well found Starblind. Being a US government work it may be public domain? However no assertion of copyright ownership, and the originating website does not indicate GFDL so I suspect WP:CSD#G12 speedy may apply. Pedro : Chat 15:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete whatever the case may be, it fails WP:NOT in its tone. Not written like an encyclopedia article.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic. KurtRaschke (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedily deleted by SGGH (G11). Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Gig Guide[edit]

Yes there's coverage of this guide, however I don't see how this is encyclopedic and/or not a violation of WP:SPAM Travellingcari (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, utterly nonnotable, there are thousands of guides like this. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per G-11. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 15:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedied SGGH ^speak! 15:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michel de la Bruyere Vincent[edit]

Article history makes it evident that this is an autobiography. Since notability is unclear, deletion must be considered. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:V for internet-based sources, that's for sure. I'd be more in favour of a delete if the claims to notability cannot be verified.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As HisSpaceResearch says: nothing useable on google. Anybody got a Big Book of Scandinavian design that would help? --Paularblaster (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Landmaster (Star Fox)[edit]

This is a gameplay element that does not have real world information to establish notability. The specifics are covered within the various articles, and there is no current assertion for improvement. For two relevant Afds on two other gameplay elements of the series, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arwing and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Fox. TTN (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge whatever is sourced and important into Fox McCloud. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. TTN (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per nom. This stuff is clearly discouraged by WP policies at WP:NOT and there is abundant precedent per, inter alia, the AfD's adduced in the nomination. Eusebeus (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. If the creator(s) of the Star Fox and F-Zero characters will hardly give the media more information on their development so the main characters will not have their individual articles questioned on notability, how can the vehicles possibly stand on their own? « ₣M₣ » 20:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge the details are not currently covered in other articles, which is why I switched this back from a redirect. When it was switched to a redirect last time none of the information was moved to the redirect destination, and it was before the vehicle appeared in its most recent game.
As for merging, to which article? This fictional vehicle has appeared or been mentioned in four games from two seperate series. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 00:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If there is no assertion of notability, there is no need to present this articles details anywhere, and with no new assertion of notability, this should not have been brought back. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With the recent/pending release (2008-01-31 in Japan, 2008-03-09 in the U.S.) of Super Smash Bros. Brawl this vehicle has gained notability. (It is the "Final Smash" of the game.) Also the vehicles new use in this game was covered in the article Dojo update: Fox Final Smash and some hot dodging action. This new notability has also resulted in a number of apparently well intentioned but poorly executed edits to the otherwise unrelated Landmaster article.—MJBurrage^(T•C) 01:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not nearly enough for a whole article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Strategy-based material aside, the rest of the article is notable and all it needs is just the basic information and game-based appearances without the too detailed strategy based stuff unless if it is sourced without the information from that source being too detailed that is all that is really needed to preserve this article and to all the people who chose delete you should consider your options, I won't be too rude about it. -71.59.237.110 (talk) 03:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick update to consider this Ign article link http://wii.ign.com/articles/849/849120p2.html possesses all the details of the hidden characters of Super Smash Bros. Brawl, including Falco and Wolf's usage of the Landmaster with pictures -71.59.237.110 (talk) 03:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect why do you need to delete it? Just redirect the thing like you had before also if you check MJBurrage who undid your redirect is willing to have it merge/redirected anyway. --Sin Harvest (talk) 05:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- When/if it is redirected, somebody needs to do a proper merge first. Simply changing the page to a redirect effectively deletes all of the contents (bad and good). Just copying the contents to the page chosen as the target would not preserve the edit history. And again, I ask which page would be the proper one to redirect to, since this is now used in two different series of games. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 17:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two series? Both the Starfox games mentioned in this article are on the Starfox series article, do you mean the Smash Bros. trophy? Someone another 18:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, the final smashes.. It's trivial information which could be mentioned somewhere in the Smash Bros. article and/or the Starfox series article, but 'it appears in..X' is not enough information for an article. Someone another 18:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 (talk) 06:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the article is already Real World. Briefly describing what the thing looks like, or where it appears is not a "Game Guide". The existing material is not about how to play the game, it is about the existence of an item that is an element of many games. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 17:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have read the article. There is no meaningful real world content. There is no discussion of the development or the reception. Game appearances is not real world information. Jay32183 (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - How is a brief description of the Landmaster, and its multiple appearances, not real world information? (The tank does really appear in multiple games, and its design does really change)
      WP:GAMEGUIDE describes a game guide as an instruction manual to playing a game. I do not see any information in the article that looks like play instructions. I could see an argument for removing things like the dimensions, but I thought that should wait for this discussion. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 01:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - When I, and others, say real world information we are talking about WP:FICT not WP:GAMEGUIDE. It's not that information needs to be removed, it's that information needs to be added and there aren't sources for it. The development of the vehicle by the game writes and produces as well as reception by proper critics, no fan sites, needs to be there. It looks like sources aren't there for that. If you want to prove me wrong, dig up sources. Jay32183 (talk) 03:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Star Fox (series) Minor vehicle in comparison to the Arwing (already redirected), no sign that the information needed to sustain a seperate article exists, the type of info needed is outlined by Jay. It's a tank.. in the Starfox series... It's a tank in the Starfox series. That hardly needs a seperate article when a series article exists. If anything is needed for merge it can be done whenever. Someone another 18:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable in the real-world. Doctorfluffy (talk) 16:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this well-referenced and well-organized article that asserts notability and is of interest to editors and readers in the real world. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the article is poorly referenced. The organization of information has no impact on an AFD, since that's a problem that can be solved purely by effort. You also seem to not understand the term "real world context". It means the article is written from the perspective of the real world, not that people in the real world will read it. Jay32183 (talk) 05:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Yep, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, the phrase 'well referenced' doesn't refer to use of ((cite web)) templates, but instead refers to significant coverage in multiple secondary sources. Addhoc (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - trivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Addhoc (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is relevant to people who are interested in these game scenarios. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not the basis for inclusion on Wikipedia. That claim could be made for any information, true or not. Jay32183 (talk) 07:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete 19:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Pakelika[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This is a two-year recreation of an unsourced bio of a non-notable musician/Dj/dancer. It is the same mess now that it was when it was created the last time. When I tried to speedy it, I was told that since it was two years old, I must take it to AfD. Orange Mike | Talk 14:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge into Kottonmouth Kings. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've cleaned this up again and again. It's a magnet for bad edits and unreferenced content. Since none of the material is referenced, there's nothing worth merging. -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt.. OTRS:2008020110002174 The artist wishes no further vandalism to this article. I suggest that if the article is deleted, it be protected against recreation to prevent future BLP issues. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. What's the password for that link? My Wikipedia login doesn't work there. -- Mikeblas (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are no reliable references that are secondary per WP:N that allow this article to assert passing the notability put forth by WP:BIO. SorryGuy Talk 06:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was: Hoax or not, speedily deleted due to no claim of notability. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 16:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Billie Majovi[edit]

I think it may be a hoax. No refs, no ghits. There is an "Official website", but I mean look at it. • Anakin ^{(contribs • complaints)} 15:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:V, and either some or all of its content is a hoax.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the content is not referenced and unverifiable. I looked up the billboard website on "Der Total Geil Band", the band "Billie Majovi" is supposebly a member, and came up with no results. I find this odd as the "Billie Majovi" article claims that the band has gone Gold in the US and yet no mention of them on the billboard site. I also checked google for this band name and came up with three results:One result to this article, one to the disam page of Billie and the other was to a mirror site of wikipedia. So this all could possibly be a hoax as the person who created this article, also uploaded the picture for it claiming to be the owner of the image. So if this is a hoax or not, there may also be a conflict of interest aswell. AngelOfSadness talk 20:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment KronNet.dk and The Chronicles of Sweatville both confirms the information. The Chronicles of Sweatville acually contains A LOT of information, not only about Billie Majovi, but also about his past. Nimbo talk 21:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actaully, KronNet.dk just confirms the picture and says something about downloading a wallpaper of the character but nothing else. And I've tried searching for the "The Chronicles of Sweatville" on google and nothing came up so it would be great if you could provide a link. AngelOfSadness talk 20:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no link to the chronicles, it's a danish book (or a series of books), you'll have to go find them in your local bookstore. The official name is "Krøniker fra Svedstrup", i just translated it to english. Nimbo talk 20:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Although there aren't many !votes here, the article's subject has not been a participant in the highest level of his/her sport and has only played at an amateur level. See this guideline. I agree that this is an A7 candidate,meaning deletion is the expected result. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Teske[edit]

This article is about a college football player, who, in his four year career as a walk-on at Miami, did not see the field a single time. The only sources given are his official Miami bio and his personal website. Originally, it was deleted as an uncontested prod, but the author recreated it, so I'm bringing it here. This topic obviously does not meet WP:BIO. B (talk) 14:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clearly non-notable. This is close to being speediable, but I suppose this AfD should run its course since the article has already been recreated once. — Satori Son 14:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A7.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. No reliable evidence that such a subgenre actually exists. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weedpunk[edit]

Appears to be a neologism, or at best some sort of original research; none of the cite sources even includes the term "weedpunk". This may make an interesting essay on punk subcultures, but I see no evidence that it belongs in wikipedia. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS. This article may qualify for speedy deletion as nonsense per WP:CSD#G1; see the discussion at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Weedpunk. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - None of the given references make any mention of Weedpunk and a Google search gives a total of 8 hits, none of which give any support of this being a literary genre. I rather suspect this is a hoax. - Galloglass 14:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism is putting it kindly. [8 Google hits], most seem unrelated. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article should be given more time to accurately reference its sources. "Weed Punk" was definitely a staple of pulp-era cheap follow ups to cyberpunk as most sci-fi enthusiasts (G-d knows there are a few on here!) will remember, which has a proper definition on Wikipedia. Most of the creative output was cheap magazines which makes proper sources hard to find. The article is well written and interesting, probably worth keeping around until we can get more research done into it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.110.124 (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2008
Delete as unverifiable (but I don't believe it's a speedy candidate under G1). — Satori Son 14:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) Delete as OR. No meaningful ghits for either “weedpunk” or “weed punk.” It does not, however, meet G1 (an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content). —Travis ^talk 14:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Definitely not a candidate for speedy deletion. However, the article does need to be improved with more sources. As even today most common pulp fiction magazines and comics are hard to find, it goes doubly so for an underground counterculture movement which is anti-government in its message. Perhaps the cannabis museum will eventually be able to find more sources from the 1960s and 1970s which can be used as further references for this page. Recommend no deletion, however the article should be tagged that citations are needed and more editors can be pulled to work on the project. Preferrably some older members that remember the movement and not some of you younger editors. I know today you guys remember the "Pog Wash" of 1995, however if you search for pog on google now you see very few sources on Pogs alone, let alone the mention of the name Pog Wash anywhere. It doesn't mean it didn't happen. --Banime (talk) 14:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have updated the article further and am finding more and more sources all the time. Please continue to give the article at least a chance. For Weedpunk related stories please see The Illuminatus! Trilogy and Weedpunk authors such as Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson. Many of the Weedpunk stories are short stories hidden in collections, which makes them harder to find for verification purpose. I recently found The Days of Perky Pat in a collection of Phillip K. Dick short stories, another important Weedpunk piece.--Banime (talk) 15:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Banime, I think that you are missing the point here :( The central issue is not whether you can find fictional works which fit your definition, but whether the genre you describe is widely recognised and described in reliable sources under the name "weedpunk".
    The article is well-written and well-structured, and it open with the assertion that "Weedpunk is a subgenre of fantasy and speculative fiction which came into prominence in the 1960s and early 1970s", which is a clear assertion of notability. What references in reliable sources can you provide to support that the assertions made in that sentence? Can you demonstrate from references in reliable sources (preferably scholarly sources) that the term "weedpunk" is authoritatively established as describing a genre of fiction? Unless you can find the references for the assertion in that opening sentence, then the it doesn't matter how well-referenced the rest of the article is, it's still simply original research. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I understand better now. I'm attempting to clean up the article and find more sources. Hopefully by clearing up some of the more poorly worded statements and properly scaling down the scope of the article it can be at least temporarily postponed from deletion until it can be even more greatly improved. --Banime (talk) 07:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I remember this from my childhood it is definitely not a hoax. My father used to store old "weedpunk" magazines under his bed and I used to read them when my parents were away. I will continue to look for these magazines to scan, but for now I recommend no deletion. --71.223.63.221 (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC) — 71.223.63.221 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - I strongly object to this article being deleted. Weedpunk has a small but devoted following, one which has admittedly dwindled somewhat in recent years, and removing this article from our online encyclopedia would be a huge mistake. The sources need to be cleaned up and more need to be added, but that is part of the evolution of any article, and is most certainly NOT a reason to delete it. If we, the keepers of this online tome of knowledge, become so keen on removing all the articles with topics about which we are unfamiliar, what then would we be left with but a shell of our grand dream? 72.144.91.74 (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC) — 72.144.91.74 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- The more I see of this, the more I think its a simple hoax. - Galloglass 15:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed. the article has been hoax-tagged, and the content is getting sillier and sillier as we speak. At first I thought it to be a weak attempt to cram unrelated works into a non-existant genre under a neologism, but it looks like it's actually just someone having a rather ho-hum joke. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sorry, but you're just wrong. I have nothing invested in this article. I was simply browsing the AFD logs and noticed a topic with which I had some familiarity. I thought it might have been up for deletion because it was a poor article or because of vandalism or something similar, but I clicked the link and found an entry with what appeared a very bright future. That's why I'm voting to keep. 72.144.91.74 (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You know, I tried to find sources for this, but was unable to do so, and give the article a fair chance. Elaborate hoax. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I intended to bring this to AfD this morning, but BrownHairedGirl beat me to it. The keep messages above from the anons are not, in any way, persuasive. This started with repeated attempts to add this information to the Literary punk genres article, and when that failed, the creation of this article was the next step. I was prepared to give Banime the benefit of the doubt, but this looks like a hoax or a joke, and the humor has worn off. Delete with prejudice. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for helping me up to this far (and earlier in my wikipedia career as well). However, please read The Illuminatus! Trilogy and try to tell me that that does not fit the genre of Weedpunk very well. There is more Weedpunk literature, I just need time to find it all and get citations and resources. --Banime (talk) 15:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure if you understand. No one seems to be arguing the existence or nonexistence of books and other works that fall under the given definition. The argument is that the term "weedpunk" it not used by any reliable sources to describe those works. All sources added so far merely talk about drug use. I don't see the term "weedpunk" in any of them. If you haven't already, please look at WP:NEOLOGISM. -Verdatum (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible delete with prejudice against the sockpuppets. An unverifiable original research essay about something made up one day as a hoax, disguised as a genuine article, with references that do not mention the subject and sock/meatpuppets attempting to sway the vote of this AfD. Don't be fooled. Google provides almost nothing for the term "weedpunk".--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And anyway, "punk" didn't really exist until about 1976 anyway when bands like Ramones came onto the scene, so to link this with the 1960s is nonsense.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to contest this. In the Steampunk article it says "Although many works now considered seminal to the genre were published in the 1960s and 1970s, the term steampunk originated in the late 1980s as a tongue in cheek variant of cyberpunk." Weedpunk is very similar, however it is at a disadvantage because the negative connotations with the term weed caused the name to not become as widespread as the more popular Steampunk. Please continue to give this article a chance. --Banime (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you just admitting that it is a non-notable neologism? Let the sources come first then the article on WP. -Verdatum (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of wikipedia articles that are under construction that have additional citations needed tags, and that is all I am asking for for this. There are sources out there, and I am currently finding them and I will make this article reliable and verifiable. I just need the time to make this a valid article for an encyclopedia. It already has the framework, just needs more citations. If USMA is allowed to exist with the tag, why shouldn't Weedpunk? There is no need to delete it there is already enough evidence to show that it indeed exists and should be explored further so that a decent article can be made. --Banime (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you actually suggesting that the United States Military Academy article, simply because it needs more references, has no more grounds to exist than this article? With all due respect, that argument is a red herring. —Travis ^talk 19:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few months ago it had almost no citations or sources. I helped build it up and make it into the more acceptable article that it is today. I ask only for the same consideration and time to similarly improve Weedpunk. --Banime (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(indent)With all due respect and good faith, looking at your contribs to that article, you made exactly one edit, removing one sentence. I'd hardly call that "building it up". Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to this, I participated in many of the discussions as well. Editing an article always takes the contributions and efforts of more than one editor. Although seeing as how this article is turning out, it seems like only I and Verdatum (and others to very limited extents) are aware of that, as everyone else has pounced on it immediately to get it deleted, instead of trying to help it so it stays and helps out wikiusers everywhere. As a personal aside, I always thought encyclopedias were about spreading information, not withholding it. --Banime (talk) 01:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to avoid making an WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. But in that case, no one is questioning the existence of a notable institution called the USMA. I'm not asking you to cite sources for all the claims and facts in the article, I'm just asking for one single reliable source that claims "There is a term called 'Weedpunk' and it means <definition>" This is what's demanded in order to justify an article's existence according to the guideline of Notability. -Verdatum (talk) 20:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Many authors and musicians perhaps better known in other genres have none the less contributed important works to the weedpunk corpus. Alanalans (talk) 16:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC) — Alanalans (talk • contribs) has made no other edits outside this specific topic.[reply]
- And where is the evidence in reliable sources that there is any such thing as "the weedpunk corpus"? Anyone can invent a term and write an essay on how it constitutes a literary genre fitting a particular definition, but that's original research and has no place in wikipedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can find a WP:RS, I have no reason to believe any exist. -Verdatum (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It's ridiculous that all the other "Punk" articles should be allowed to exist when some of them lack even the (admittedly small) number of citations found in this article. -Just add maize (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC) — Just add maize (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Article simply needs more citations. Many other articles have less grounds than this and are allowed to stay for improvement, I believe the article can become valid --Windmill1856 (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC) — Windmill1856 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Note - please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Thanks —Travis ^talk 19:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but don't forget WP:GOOGLEHITS. Weedpunk may not be the world's largest literary genre but that does not imply that it simply doesn't exist. The biggest problem here seems to be poor choice in references. While I (as well as several others on this page) seem already familiar with the subject, it is not surprising that someone who has never heard of Weedpunk might dismiss it as farce. However, the article does provide several examples of authors working in this genre (Shea,Wilson,Dick) as well as major references in popular culture (Dylan,Stone). For some subjects this level of detail may be ok, but I suppose given Weedpunk's controversial nature that it might not be enough in this instance. I vote Keep and yet urge the authors of the original article to do a little more homework finding solid sources next time so that this type of discussion doesn't need to happen again. GermanJoey (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC) — GermanJoey (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Dylan and stone are not references in popular culture. They are supposed examples in popular culture. A reference in popular culture to Dylan would be if Dylan used the word "weedpunk" in one of his songs. He hasn't or it would certainly show up on a Google search. No one is doubting that there are creative works that involve marijuana and sci-fi/fantasy. At this point, I'm just asking for the slightest reason to believe references that verifiablereferences exist that define or even use the word, and these references can eventually be found. Drug culture (marijuana in particular) is pretty huge on the Internet. So the only reason I can imagine why this wouldn't show up on a Google search would be if it was a term that was popular in the 60s and everyone who used it completely forgot about it by the time the Internet came into existence. Please read WP:NEOLOGISM and explain to me what reason you have to believe that this term doesn't fall into this category. -Verdatum (talk) 23:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, man. I'm not really sure what to make of this. There's sources, but I don't think any of them are abut the genre, it seems to be a combination of "Legalize pot" stuff and stories the author arbitrarily classifies as "weedpunk". In fact, the constant refrence to "weed" and not "marijuana" or "hemp" or "cannabis" makes this one smell...well, kind of funny. Heheh, that was a joke. I'm going to say Delete, and I'd ask the author just what the they was smoking when he made this...but I think I know. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As much as sentimentality toward some of the books mentioned might make me want to cry out "keep", this "term" fails on notability and the article itself is just ludicrous. Beeblbrox (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Give it another chance. You of all people know the importance of weed punk, as you're one of the only educated editors on here who actually knows the weedpunk works that have been mentioned.--Banime (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want the article to be given a chance then you need to start providing references in reliable sources that the concept of "weedpunk" meets wikipedia's notability standards and is not just something which you made up. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, especially since none of the so-called sources in the article even mention “weedpunk.” —Travis ^talk 00:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete this is an obvious hoax Snappy56 (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, and if your user page is indeed correct, then I can understand why you may think that this is a hoax. Being from Ireland, you probably have almost no experience with weedpunk. Stick with your Irish articles where you may have more expertise and please leave mainly American underground cultural movements which you have no idea about alone. Remember, this is not a majority vote, so please keep whatever beliefs about marijuana to yourself when discussing the deletion. However, I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are just very ignorant of the subject since there was no similar movement in your country and you have little to no experience with it. --Banime (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment Personally attacking someone because they are from Ireland is not the way to argue your point. Please limit your remarks to the subject at hand, the credibility and notability of this article, not the qualities of the people participating in the debate.Beeblbrox (talk) 00:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think the nationality of the editor has a lot to do with this point. It's obvious he hasn't even heard of an American underground movement because he has very little exposure to it. This may lead him to assume incorrectly that this it may in fact be a hoax because of his limited amount of knowledge and the lack of easily obtainable internet sources (however, this point alone does not discredit its notability, see WP:GOOGLEHITS). And if you reread my statement, I think you can see there was no personal attack there whatsoever, and you are the one trying to derail the argument. I'm just trying to weed (forgive the pun) out any form of bias that may affect the unwarranted deletion of this article. --Banime (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have it on good authority that they have books in Ireland Banime and have done for many years. - Galloglass 01:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        This small point has already gotten out of hand, so let's stop it here. I'm just trying to say that users who immediately dismiss this without presenting any type of evidence may be biased in some form or another. --Banime (talk) 01:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you for your patronising and insulting response. Yes, I am Irish and you know we are quite advanced these days, we've got crime and pollution and even the internet. Don't tell what to do! Don't tell me to "Stick with your Irish articles", I'll edit where I please! Don't assume I know nothing about so-called "American underground cultural movements". FYI, I lived and worked in a major US city for over two years. Instead of attacking me, why don't you produce some evidence of the notability of this subject? Something which you have been repeatedly asked to do but repeatedly failed to produce. Instead you attack editors who disagree with you in a pathetic attempt to sow confusion. As I as I see it there are 3 possibilites: 1) This is a hoax - most likely option 2) This is a very obscure topic and is therefore not notable and should not be in Wikipedia 3) This may be Original Research by you, which again means it should not be in Wikipedia. Now instead of insulting me again, go and use your time to produce some evidence of notability! Now excuse me while I go feed the leprechauns... Snappy56 (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        If you read up you see we already settled this. Anyway, I'd like to apologize again to you personally. However, your point that I have been attacking editors is wrong, as you were the only editor I "attacked" (although I didn't mean it that way). And I have consistently been trying to get reliable sources for the article. My comment was just an emotional outburst when I saw you immediately assume it was an "obvious" hoax without offering why. In fact, since the article is up for deletion and was not speedy deleted, I'd say your comment could have been taken as a more offensive comment to the majority of editors since it assumes that whoever does not see this as a hoax must be extremely stupid. Anyway, I hope you can see where I'm coming from, I didn't mean to insult anyone. Sorry again! --Banime (talk) 01:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. My friends and I were talking about a short story we had read our freshmen year of college that was in the Weedpunk genre, and none of us could remember it's name. I figured I'd search for Weedpunk here to see if it was mentioned at all, since Weedpunk is a relatively niche genre. We shouldn't delete this article and make it even more obscure than what it already is. By the way, the class was "Postmodern Rebellion in Fantasy: An Examination of a Phenomenon."Derpington (talk) 23:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. I doubt you intended it that way, but you have just made a very good argument for deletion. Wikipedia uses secondary sources, and it records things which are already notable, as defined in Wikipedia:Notability. If the subject is indeed as obscure as you say — and I think you are right that it is obscure — then there should not be a wikipedia article on it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply. Good point, however please remember within Wikipedia:Notability that "The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity", although these may positively correlate with notability." Just because it is not famous or popular does not automatically preclude it from the encyclopedia. In fact, I say if he is learning about the genre in a college class, even if it is a smaller school, it is still notable. However I agree with the rest of the definition that reliable secondary sources must be found, and will continue to search. --Banime (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply. Good start, but please read the rest of Wikipedia:Notability, to see how notability is assessed. Being the subvject of class a college is not relevant; what matters is substantial coverage in reliable sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Reply. While this is true, there was at least one secondary article we read for the class that mentioned Weedpunk specifically by name when talking about dystopian representation and their reflection on the culture of their authors. I'm going to go through my old books and see if I still have the book in question to help out with the article. Derpington (talk) 02:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It will important to offer details of the ref, so that other editors can assess whether the reference was in a reliable source, and whether the coverage is substantial. Also, one source may not be enough; it's not sufficient for the term to have been used by one critic, we need evidence that it is more widely used. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment You, Banime, are the one that needs to produce some evidence proving the notability of this subject. It's clear you are sincere in feeling that this is an important subject deserving of it's own entry, but without proper secondary sources, it stands a good chance of being deleted. Refering to someone as "ignorant" and telling them to "stick with your Irish article" is a personal attack, and being Irish does not make someone automatically biased. c'monBeeblbrox (talk) 02:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see! Sorry for the confusion. But hopefully you can at least see the point I was trying to make. I see yours now as well. --Banime (talk) 02:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for being reasonable. If you do find any reliable secondary sources that use this term, please post them here and we will help add them to the article. — Satori Son 17:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources appear to mention this. Likely OR, possible hoax. Doctorfluffy (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While doing a bit of Googling for this term, I came across this site here which gives this away as a hoax. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it doesn't. He thinks it's a hoax, but he's not verifying it as one.--UsaSatsui (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, looking at it again you may be right, but it does lead me to wonder a bit more about the truthfulness of this article. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is the hardest uphill battle I've ever fought in my life. I'll find the sources eventually, but after seeing all this I'm just hoping it's enough... --Banime (talk) 21:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - No relevant sources so far, and external claims that it's a hoax, so at this point there are no grounds at all to keep the article.
        I think that the article is probably a hoax which belongs in WP:BJAODN, but I accept that "weedpunk" might be a term already used in some obscure punk fan-circles (as Derpington claimed, above). However, if that's all it is, then the term is non-notable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep (closed by non-admin). RMHED (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roland W. Schmitt[edit]

Seems to me it fails WP:N at first glance it looks impressive. But when you actually look at it says, he had a job or two then got a political appointment to be chairman of an organization New York State Office Of Science, Technology and Academic Research Jeepday (talk) 14:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep President of University, multiple awards and substantial media coverage. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 14:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick look through Google Books makes it clear the individual is at least notable. Also, see Hot In-place Recycling of Asphalt Concrete (Google Books) (Mind meal (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Obvious keep. At first glance, it looks impressive, also at second glance, and third... Sheesh, eleven honorary degrees alone. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, was president of a major university, and notable in a few other regards as well. Seems to have plenty of references now, even though there may have been a slight conflict of interest going on earlier. Danski14^(talk) 18:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article clearly asserts his notability and cites many reliable secondary sources in doing so. - Neparis (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Eleven honorary degrees, several prizes, former president of a university, & former chair of the National Science Foundation. Clearly meets WP:PROF. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kevvy[edit]

Fails WP:V and WP:BK. I can find no secondary sources about this that are non-trivial by googling for author's name and the novel's title, just a few directory-style entries. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The writer himself doesn't have an article on WP but his novel became notable! Supporting this nomination as per WP:NOTE. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 13:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BK. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 14:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BK. A quick Google reveals this to be a vanity-published/self-published book. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not yet sufficiently notable. — Satori Son 14:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep, misguided nomination by myself having seen a revert to vandalised edit. Solumeiras (talk) 12:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Davies[edit]

AfDs for this article:

No assertion of notability, and violates Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If he is notable in the future this can be re-created. Solumeiras (talk) 12:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as presently edited. I've reverted the article to a previous version. Also, the previous deletion was for a high school basketball coach, not the college football Hall of Famer. Patken4 (talk) 12:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All About Ads[edit]

Delete as per WP:N. Non-notable TV show. A Google search returns nothing, thus its verifiability is also questionable. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 12:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete either a hoax or so non-notable even Google hasn't heard of it, quite a feat for a TV show. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete since it's not found anywhere on google, and the author isn't even sure how to tell us where or when to catch it. No bat-time, no bat-channel. Mandsford (talk) 13:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NN and WP:V. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 14:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Verifiability, which clearly states, "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it". — Satori Son 14:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Rudget. 17:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twirley chassey[edit]

Delete as fails at both the core policies - WP:N and WP:V. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 12:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete don't forget WP:BIO. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although does pass WP:V and WP:RS because of this - [21] [22]. Still Wikipedia is not the news, and is not for biographies of people notable only for one event. Could never be more than a stub - it's based on one news story (effectively the same story in two different newspapers).-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 14:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Alternative Miss Ireland, since someone might search for it. But really, I don't think they will. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Goyoneche[edit]

Delete as per WP:BIO and WP:NOTE. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 12:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:BIO: "competed in a fully professional league...." --brew crewer (yada, yada) 14:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you know positively that the Peruvian league is fully professional? I have doubts. Punkmorten (talk) 19:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The league is the Primera Profesional de Perú, so I believe it is a professional league. Regardless, Alianza is a professional club. Jogurney (talk) 05:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Article does assert sufficient notability, but does not verify it with reliable sources. Both a Google News Archive search and a Yahoo! News search provide 0 hits, but I'm not really sure how meaningful that is for a professional(?) Peruvian football player. I have left a note on the creator's talk page asking them to please provide a source for this and many other unreferenced stubs they have created today. If that can be done, article should be kept. — Satori Son 15:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've added a reference to the team website that confirms that he's on their books, but I can't find anything to say whether he's actually played for them. The Google news archive does actually get a few sources (it helps not to include an English word in a search for a Peruvian subject), but my Spanish isn't good enough to confirm whether these say that he's played in a competitive league match - some of them seem to be about a friendly match against a Chilean team. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yeah, sorry about the "football" vs. "fútbol" thing. Still not sure about this one, though. — Satori Son 20:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alianza Lima are a professional team. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all for the research. Changing to Keep. — Satori Son 13:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, plays at the highest level of Peruvian football for one of the best teams in the country. King of the North East 10:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Goyoneche has played at least one league match for Alianza Lima ([23]). I suspect he has played a few, but found this one and stopped checking for others. Jogurney (talk) 05:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus to delete. Please take possible merger discussions to the appropriate talk pages. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deutsche Tolkien Gesellschaft[edit]

Fiction fanclub of questionable notability. No independent (at least English language) sources given.-- Dougie WII (talk) 12:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep, notable organization, an independent and perfectly notable English language source is given right under "References". Alternatively merge into an article with the larger scope of Reception of Tolkien in Germany, which is the topic of a full lemma in the encyclopedia cited. dab (𒁳) 12:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a fan club with 500 members is distinctly non-notable and as written doesn't pass WP:ORG. Wikipedia has a tendency to keep anything with any possible connection to Tolkien but this is pretty ridiculous. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. - A local organization/fan club with a small scope and size is not notable. Fails at WP:ORG. -- Niaz^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 13:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- oh yes? say you? Before or after you have reviewed the Routledge published source provided? Which says it is of great notability to the reception of JRRT in German-speaking Europe? The DTG is a publisher with an impact far beyond its 500 members. You wouldn't delete the article on a publishing house based on the argument that it has only 500 employees. I will not mention Kontu Internet Community in the spirit of WP:OTHERCRAP, but even that can be fruitfully merged into Reception of Tolkien rather than deleted. Once again, I am perplexed by the widespread lack of understanding of the purpose of AfD. dab (𒁳) 13:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh yes! Once again, I am perplexed by the widespread lack of understanding of the purpose of AfD.. Me too, when I saw such replies. -- Niaz^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 13:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am glad we agree, then. --dab (𒁳) 15:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are at least three other Tolkien organizations with articles of their own. Ideally, it would be better if all of the fan club articles were consolidated into Tolkien fandom, but the very nature of Wikipedia is to "wikify" non-links with brackets, and if they show up as red.links, to turn them into bluelinks. In this case, it looks notable enough to stay blue. Five hundred members is actually pretty good for a specialty group, particularly if it publishes the research of others. Mandsford (talk) 14:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- as a rule, not all redlinks that keep cropping up warrant a dedicated article, but all of them should be redirected to some pertinent target article or section. meta:mergism. I keep seeing AfDs on titles that should just silently be redirected to an article with a larger scope. --dab (𒁳) 15:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Reception of Tolkien. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 14:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a branch of a fanclub... if not a delete, then merge or redirect into the larger Tolkien. Jmlk 1 7 19:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At least five articles in reliable sources; e.g. discussion of the club and a recent conference (in German, admittedly, but notability is worldwide) including this one from the Mitteldeutsche Zeitung; a couple others as well; the primary organisers of Ring*Con, the main convention of its sort. 6000 Ghits. Seems a straightforward keep by our standards of notability, which require multiple independent RSes. Relata refero (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant, conditional keep. "Importance" and "notability" are two different concepts in Wikipedia. I am certainly not convinced of the importance of Deutsche Tolkien Gesellschaft, but if what Relata refero says is true then the topic probably is notable. But, the secondary sources mentioned should be scrutinized for reliability and independence, and MUST be incorporated into the article. WP:RS gives some criteria for reliability, and WP:ORG identifies some pitfalls when considering independence. Ipoellet (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both the sources I've linked to above are of unimpeachable reliability - one a major paper, and the other an arts review from a major publisher - and are obviously independent of the DTG. Relata refero (talk) 07:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep as basic notability seems to have been established through verifiable reliable sources. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atheist and Agnostic Group[edit]

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

This is an article on a MySpace group that happened to be deleted after a minor incident that got equally minor news coverage. It's unlikely the group meets WP:WEB or WP:ORG; one of the sources is a short news story related to the aforementioned incident, another is a passing mention, and a third isn't entirely independent. Core desat 12:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actaully this article was created long before the recent attacks that are starting to hit news sites. It already went through a process of proving itself, and the valdalism/attacks stuff wasn't added until recently. The story is just now starting to snowball and this article will serve as a good neutral public reference source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.244.107.206 (talk) 12:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I won't repeat the arguments below for keeping, but I will note that MySpace's deletion of the Athiest and Agnostic Group may become a much more notable event than it is now. MySpace's activities to stifle the group would appear to infringe the ideals of freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion expressed in the US Constitution's Bill of Rights. Given that MySpace is a commercial organization, I don't know what the legal ramifications would be, and in any event Wikipedia is not the place to argue them. However, the issues highlighted in the present article seem to be of fundamental importance. I totally agree with other commentators that the present article should be treated as a stub needing a more neutral treatment and robust documentation. On the other hand, deletion by Wikipedia would only add to the controversy. BillHall (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG. A myspace group (or yahoo group, or Facebook group, etc) would have to be pretty extremely notable to warrant an article of its own, and I certainly don't see anything like that here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepLook, it's been up for almost a year so before you start pulling the trigger so fast, just google "pesta atheist myspace" and a ton of news articles pop up. I'm not going to litter the article with news links becasue it was not meant to be a propaganda piece in the first place. The article had information edited out that it was given an award not because of it's size on myspace, but becasue of it's size on the internet. I know you guys may see atheists as unimportant. How many internet forums get an award from Harvard? Don't use your bias against myspace to ignore the fact that it is in fact a group of people organized on the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.244.107.206 (talk) 13:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To me, this seems like a historical event about which people would like to remember the details as accurately as possible. This event is outlined here: http://www.secularstudents.org/node/1933

If this is a case of bigotry, and most people agree bigotry is bad, then most people should want this to remain documented and open for discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspirin99 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I think "littering the article with news links" would actually be quite an improvement over its current state, but you do what you want. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, you are right about it needing more links. I'm still sort of new to editing wiki pages. I don't think this article meets deletion criteria because there is nothing fake/spam/garage-band/new terms/etc about it. The only thing in question is it's notability. I'm still in process but there are a ton of various news outlets reporting on the group, to meet one notability criteria. It also meets the criteria "The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.". That would be Harvard. How do I vote to keep this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.244.107.206 (talk) 14:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think as an example of the ongoing oppression of Atheism and Atheistic ideas, this article has merit. Perhaps editing to expand its scope and provide a broader context is in order. I don't believe it warrants deletion, however, for what it's worth. To be truly objective, though, there should at least be an attempt to provide MySpace.com's side of the group deletion. Even if they say nothing at all, there should be mention of an attempt to contact them. Sabin Densmore —Preceding comment was added at 14:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I came across the http://www.secularstudents.org/node/1933 page, which links to the wiki article, using StumbleUpon (that page has 40 Stumble reviews at the time of writing - which is a fairly established page by Stumble standards, though I appreciate Stumble isn't traditional mainstream media). It was interesting to me and I'd like the Wikipedia article to be developed to cover the facts comprehensively. krebbe (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't currently warrant an article. The deletion of the group may prove interesting and get enough thirdparty coverage (see:WP:OR) to warrant an article in the long run, but at the moment it's just a blog post theorising wildy with (as its author states) no evidence to back it up, which (it should go without saying) doesn't make a good encyclopedia entry in and of itself. Also, FWIW, grousing about being oppressed by a dangerous cabal of Wikipedia editors who are out to get you (Monty Python and the Holy Grail style?) has never been a good way of avoiding an article deletion. Sockatume (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Who said anything about a cabal? That sounds like a strawman argument to me. --George100 (talk) 10:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not part of my argument for deletion, it's advice. The blog complains that Wikipedia is "jumping on the bandwagon" of anti-atheist sentiment, which (given Wikipedia's disproportionately humanist userbase, myself included) I find absolutely hilarious. It's the sort of argument from persecution that the authors of small websites (webcomics leap to mind) use on here all the time, so it tends to undermine the legitimacy of a site's argument and should be avoided as a rhetorical strategy wherever possible. Sockatume (talk) 12:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it's notable enough to be covered in the mainstream press[24] // Liftarn (talk)
- A single incidental source isn't enough; multiple independent non-trivial sources are needed, and one isn't multiple. --Coredesat 17:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - So you're saying that if one more major paper covers it, you're ok with this article? Give it a week and your wish will come true, maybe sooner. It's rising on digg and may even pop up on fark. Penn Jillet from Penn&Teller just caught wind of it and will say something about it, and Bill Maher has been contacted. And sockatume, I have no idea what your beef is but editing the original article in a biased manner doesn't help either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.244.107.206 (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - We can't go on speculation; the sources have to exist now. Just because sources might exist does not warrant an article on the subject right now. --Coredesat 21:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - We can't rush things, either. You're a bit too anxious to get rid of this article. 75.66.233.162 (talk) 00:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - So what is the hurry to delete this article right now? It can be given a few weeks, or months. There are plenty of non-notable articles on wikipedia. --George100 (talk) 10:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It already is on Fark.Torc2 (talk) 23:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fark isn't a reliable source, it's trivial. It consists only of a link to the Cleveland.com article that is already in the article. --Core desat 23:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Fark doesn't have to be a reliable source, because the issue isn't verifiability at this point. Being on Fark is just a minor indicator of notability. So is this. So is this. Torc2 (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Those are blogs. Blogs aren't reliable sources either, see WP:V#Self-published sources. Something being on Fark has never been an indicator of notability; if it is, please point me at the policy or guideline that says it is. --Core desat 01:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Blogs are unreliable as the sole source of factual information. That's why they're not added to the article and not depended upon for WP:V issues. In an AfD discussion of how notable a subject is and how much interest the topic has generated, they are reliable and may be considered. While not exactly the case here, WP:SELFPUB acknowledges that blogs and otherwise unreliable sources may be used in regards to notability. If not for the Cleveland article, this other material would not be sufficient; in light of the Cleveland article, these are applicable to the AfD. These also illustrate that this is a current event, and there is no reason to decide its fate while it is happening. And BTW, here's another. Torc2 (talk) 02:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep This is an event that is still unfolding, and it should be tagged as such. When the dust settles we will be better able to see if we want this article to remain. It needs work, but not a delete.Beeblbrox (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that argument would work better if people were not trying to use wikipedia to increae the impact of the event.Geni 00:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Current notable event, and notability is not temporary. This should be here to stay. Torc2 (talk) 23:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a notable event. There is no other news coverage outside of one website and a satirical sentence on another website (which is trivial). --Coredesat 23:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think the article and the attention it is currently receiving is sufficient to establish notability. At least enough that an AfD is horribly premature. Torc2 (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. —Sting au Buzz Me... 00:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - - Notability = reliable sourcing, which there is hardly any of. It's just a MySpace group, it's got to do a lot more than get deleted to be notable. --Core desat 01:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable atheist group with valid WP:RS. Sting au Buzz Me... 00:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Once something gains notability, it cannot be lost. 75.66.233.162 (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, feel free to void this vote, which is inevitable, since my IP was changed today for whatever reason as I just noticed. It still doesn't change the fact that notability is not temporary. The nom appears to be in a big hurry to get this deleted. Once it hit all the major social news outlets and a big news outlet, you rushed to get this article destroyed, which is reckless. 75.66.233.162 (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yahoo has tried to delete this group 3 times so it is notable. Also, it won't reflect well on Wikipedia if it "censors" the group too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.149.35 (talk) 01:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was the largest group of this "religious" sect in existence. Even if it doesn't come back into existence, its former existence must be known, even if it was not victim of "foul play". Regardless of if people like this group or not, it should be known into the future.FVarro (talk) 03:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - feature at Harvard Humanist convention establishes notability and media coverage provides more evidence of notability--Gimme danger (talk) 03:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It does? It's a passing mention. Trivial. --Core desat 04:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The "not a ballot" template you threw down is completely inappropriate and rude. You're just crying because you're not immediately getting your way. Just shuffle this around on a mailing list, and two or three of your administrator buddies will have this article gone within a day. 75.66.233.162 (talk) 04:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not something he just cooked up. Wikipedia switched from a "vote" to a "concensus" system for article deletion some years ago because a vote system wasn't a reasonable expression of the deletion criteria, and because people had a tendency to flood VfD discussions with explicitly interested parties in an attempt to sway the vote. Would you rather that the article was kept or removed on the basis of popularity, or on the basis of a reasoned, fact-based argument? Sockatume (talk) 12:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lets see, the article exists for almost a year, and as soon as some major public controversy starts to erupt over the group in public newspapers and popular internet blogs with large readerships, suddenly a few people get a bee up their bum to delete the article. Somehow it's hard to see this deletion nomination as only a normal run-of-the-mill wikipedia junk cleanup. It's obvious that many many people have taken notice in the public arena, way beyond the fact that the group already has 34,000 members which alone has meaning. "It's just myspace" comments show ignorance and bias. This article is and has been used as informative reference, although it needs work. It is not doing any harm, only good on wikipedia. Writing an article about my poo for the day is not notable. This group very much is. I don't get the controversy over the number of sources, is there doubt that the group exists? All this crying to get it removed just sounds plain biased after the facts.````Hox memplex

An article existing for any length of time doesn't justify your accusations of bad faith toward me. The group exists, yes. The group is not notable per existing guidelines, however. --Core desat 04:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So why didn't you nominate the article for deletion a month ago? Or last fall? --George100 (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This tag was totally unnecessary. Nobody is casting a vote without expressing a reason. Torc2 (talk) 02:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep apparently nobody noticed the article earlier, notthat its bad faith or prejudice. But some facebook groups can be notable,and this is one of them. DGG (talk) 06:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Criteria for deletion is whether or not it is notable....?? Then isn't the simplest test of that - how many hits this article has received??? If next to no-one has followed the link to here then ipso facto. And conversely. 203.211.90.164 (talk) 00:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)pbjafa[reply]
  - Obviously that wouldn't work, that would only measure the wikipedia article's notability, not the group's notability. The measure of the latter is usually the number of different tertiary sources discussing the group. It's a useful rule of thumb because, of course, the more that's written about the group, the better chance we have of producing a meaningful, neutral, reliable article by referring to those sources. At the moment the article is just a reprint of the group founder's comments, which isn't particularly enlightening. Sockatume (talk) 02:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This appears to be a notable event (still unfolding) describing alleged discrimmination on the part of MySpace against a secular group (possibly the world's largest organized group of atheists), in connection with perceived religious bias on the part of the Rupert Murdoch group, which owns MySpace. That's pretty notable, and has received sufficient press coverage to keep, in my view. The article isn't in the best shape, but that's no reason to delete it. -Amatulić (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

doubtful iidb is pretty darn close and numbers online tend to have lower impact factors than meatspace. Realisticaly the largest organisied group once you trim non active and dead accounts would probably be one of the humanist assocations. Okey the actual largest group would be one of the atheist religions such as the Raëlians.Geni 00:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I accessed the page recently when wanting to research the group. Gomez2002 (talk) 10:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Improve. This article is a stub and there is no reason to delete it at this time. I feel it would have been more appropriate to use the Notability tag (((notable))).

It has been on wikipedia for nearly a year, it can certainly remain for a few more months to see if its notability improves. --George100 (talk) 10:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As the largest Atheist/Agnostic Group in the world, what other criteria are required for this article to meet notability requirements? The "current" news story almost incidental.Mr Twain (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And some more articles in the press[25][26][27]... // Liftarn (talk)

Keep. How I got here: German article that links on this Wiki article.[28] --89.246.120.235 (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A well-known group, and subject of news headlines. Lurker (said · done) 10:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. --PeaceNT (talk) 03:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skyline Builders[edit]

I hearby nomiate Skyline Builders atleast due to the following reasons

WP:SOAP WP:NOT WP:SPAM

Tinucherian (talk · contribs) 10:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep- bad faith nomination by User:Tinucherian. details are here --Avinesh Jose T 10:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no advertising, or attempt at soapboxing here. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 11:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Though it is unreferenced, but the tone doesn't seem to be an advertising one. Wikipedians from India, specially from South India may improve this article with some proper citations. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 12:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable. Although a bit spammy, nothing that can't be taken care of. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 14:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW, possibly a WP:POINT too. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caritas Hospital[edit]

I hearby nominate Caritas Hospital atleast due to the following reasons

WP:SOAP
WP:NOT
WP:SPAM

Tinucherian (talk) 11:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep- bad faith nomination by User:Tinucherian. details are here. User:Tinucherian is the author of Pakalomattom Ayrookuzhiyil (listed below) which I’d nominated AfD. Therefore he nominated pages which I’d involved in editing. All properly referenced articles. User:Tinucherian, you requested to read WP:ABF. Thanks. --Avinesh Jose T 11:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I again see no advertising or soapboxing here. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 12:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep - The hospital's website looks legit, but I'd like to see some more independant sources. Another issue is that "Caritas Hospital" seems to be the name of several hospitals throughout the world, maybe a disambig page would be needed. I just finished cleaning up the page, removing POV violations, removing redundant info for hospitals, and generally improving per the MOS.Gwynand (talk) 14:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While not every hospital is notable, a research hospital is noteworthy, as is a teaching hospital. Caritas, being synonymous with charity, is a common name for hospitals, like St. Luke, Methodist, Good Samaritan, etc., and I agree that the title should be moved to something like Mandsford (talk) 14:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sounds like a large important regional hospital and a research centre. Pollytyred (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speediliy deleted as vandalism Dlohcierekim Deleted?

Cooble[edit]

Probably hoax, no sources given fschoenm (talk) 11:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nonsense. Kafka Liz (talk) 11:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - first and foremost, it has to be a hoax. No hits anywhere for the term or the supposed person it's named after. This was amusing, though.--Gwynand (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as disruptive vandalism.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as bull. Nice sign, though. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete as FrEaK40 - Sources Pending, please give requested time. —Preceding comment was added at 20:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hoax. Contributor above is an SPA editing only on this and Arthur D. Cooble. JohnCD (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

my account is not a SPA, these are just my first arcticles of many more to come —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrPlow09 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment BobSmith25 (talk · contribs) has removed the AfD notice from both articles. At time of writing, they are his only edits. JuJube (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:HOAX and nonsense. Macy's 123 ^{(review me)} 23:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Due to lack of references and persistance vandalism on the site I have decided to remove both sites.

Speedy delete G3, as blatant and obvious misinformation. Deor (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried both "Cooble measurement" and "Cooble distance" neither turned up, any relevant reliable pages. I would also like to Assume good faith on the creator's part. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 00:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, G3 Obvious hoax. And some pretty serious sockpuppetry going on. Blueboy 96 02:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definite hoax. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 03:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 03:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Lonelygirl15 Episodes[edit]

This appears to have been created for the sole purpose of providing a directory of YouTube links. Not only is WP:NOT a web directory, but all the remaining information in this list is unsourced. The Anome (talk) 11:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete big ol' spreadsheet chock full of links. I wouldn't even suggest merging to the main article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT nothing remotely worth saving here Mayalld (talk) 13:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the others here.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT Doc Strange (talk) 14:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, absolutely, per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:NOT#MIRROR, and probably lots of other things that WP is NOT. • Anakin ^{(contribs • complaints)} 15:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others Stephenb (Talk) 17:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 03:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — no need to transwikify; list also exists on LGPedia. -- Lea (talk) 06:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per all above. -- Yvh11a (Talk • Contribs) 06:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Bob talk 13:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete. Non-admin closure --Lenticel ^(talk) 12:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lies (Novel)[edit]

The links don't lead anywhere, and there is no such book on Amazon. Pretty sure this is a hoax. Even if it should prove not to be, there are issues with copyvio and notability. Also nominating author biography, and any other related pages. Lampman (talk) 11:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even if it were "real", a vanity-press/self-published book wouldn't be notable anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For reasons stated above. "...award winning novel...", no mention of what award, when it was awarded, or any citation to prove it. Completely fails all notability guidlines. Nouse4aname (talk) 11:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I believe that the book may well exist, however, it seems that the entire content of the article is copy and pasted from [29]. Neither the author nor the novel currently seem notable enough to warrant an article, especially one that appears self-written and only serves as a bit of free publicity. I would suggest deleting asap. Nouse4aname (talk) 12:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response I am very new to wikipedia, as well as to it's formatting/copyright rules. I read all the tutorials, and supplementary information, but am unsure as to what violation you are referring to. Rather than abrasively pushing for deletion, attempting to help me correct whatever issues are present would make for a stronger display of professionalism. I assure you, there is no hoax on either of the pages, and resent the implication. I am more than willing to learn, and I have several articles I wish to add following the resolution of this issue. Enigma// (talk) 11:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:BK and, more generally, WP:N. It looks like WP:COI and WP:SPAM are relevant to the matter as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You need to let the deletion debate take its turn, and if the community agrees with you, the article will remain. What you must not do is remove the deletion template from the page. This is considered vandalism, and it will not help your case in any way. Rather it will show bad faith on your part, and strengthen the case for deletion. You have done it three times already, if you do it again you will be reported and blocked from edited. Also, I don't know if you are the subject of this article yourself, but if you are, please read Wikipedia:Autobiography. Lampman (talk) 12:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have read all of the information provided, and I believe I understand your basis for concern. What is the next step then? Enigma// (talk) 12:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Enigma//[reply]
- I am sorry if I assumed bad faith at first, I didn't mean to bite the newcomer. As for these articles, I don't think there is anything that can be done to save them, simply on issues of notability. Your edits are impressive for a newcomer though, and if you have contributions you wish to make on notable subjects, these would be most welcome. Lampman (talk) 12:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable. I mean, let's face facts, it was shameless self-endorsement, and I didn't think it would be cracked down on. Evidently I was wrong. It would still be pretty sweet to keep them. As for your apology, I appreciate it. I do try hard to learn quickly, and to use proper format in all things; so thanks. By the way, how did you all discover the article so quickly, and already have time to investigate it? I barely finised typing. Enigma// (talk) 12:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Enigma//[reply]
- And I appreciate your refreshing honesty! Some of us patrol Special:Newpages regularly, to see if recently created pages violate policy. Lampman (talk) 12:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, is there anyway/did you want me to remove these articles myself? Is it just the book article, or the biography as well? Enigma// (talk) 12:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Enigma//[reply]
- You can replace the tag with ((Db-author)) which will indicate that the author wants the article deleted right away. And yes, I did have the biography in mind as well. Lampman (talk) 12:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check the two pages, and let me know if everything looks in order. I put that speedy deletion thing in, but I'm not sure if I did it right. Thanks. Enigma// (talk) 12:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Enigma//[reply]

The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4 (recreation of an article previously deleted via an AfD). --Angelo (talk) 16:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Onome Sodje[edit]

Page was re-created after being deleted as it was non-notable, Sodje has never appeared in a fully pro league. Previous AfD is here Jimbo^[online] 11:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4 (recreation of deleted material), plus the link on Template:York City F.C. squad should be blacklinked to stop people being tempted to recreate it again. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy deleted by User:Malinaccier (CSD G1: Patent nonsense). Non-admin closure. sho y 14:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark manly bertrand[edit]

Seems to be a nonnotable neologism PROD was removed by an anon without explanation. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 10:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteas per WP:NONSENSE -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 13:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete umm, WP:NONSENSE, WP:CB, and Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_for_things_made_up_in_school_one_day. --65.16.61.35 (talk) 14:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as patent nonsense, tag is placed on page.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whitehot property[edit]

Reads like something your real estate agent would hand out. No sources, no verification, just a sales term and not a very notable one at that. Thinly veiled advertising, though not for a specific product or firm. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 10:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:OR, as no references are provided. WP:NEO based on the phrase term ... has become more prevalent since mid-2007. I could name a few more, but those should suffice Yng varr 10:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:OR. A clear case of original research. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 13:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with all the above. Pollytyred (talk) 13:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per everyone, totally unencyclopedic.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ditto and etcetera. No doubt inserted by someone who wants to sell you a plan about how you can Make Money Fast by identifying "whitehot properties". - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baris Ince[edit]

I very much doubt such video gamers are notable... dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 09:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no attribution of notability to independent sources. Pro videogamers can be notable, but we need to have someone else make the determination. --Dhartung | Talk 09:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From WP:BIO on entertainers (about the closest section I can match this to) Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Nope, article does not assert that. Google returns nothing. No references and looks like a pile of WP:OR and/or a vanity piece. Pedro : Chat 09:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely successful and famous Age of Empires Player. Many AoC players would find this interesting, maybe even inspiring :O. But yes, one of the best there is and for that reason, should stay. Link To The Future (talk) 12:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I do wish I could play AoC a bit better, I don't find this inspiring. Sorry. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 00:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as per A7. What an effort to create a vanity article! Kid, try to understand the basic philosophy of Wikipedia :-). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niaz (talk • contribs) 13:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD A7. Wow, he's good at a video game, so am I! Where's my article? Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy/snowball delete - I believe this was previously deleted under A7 at least once then recreated by the author. Gromlakh (talk) 14:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:BIO, WP:RS, WP:V.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, fails WP:BIO, Google reveals nothing convincing. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 03:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD A7. Not notable enough to have his own encyclopedia page, and sounds a bit like a third person autobiography. — Cuyler91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 17:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Doctorfluffy (talk) 04:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was} delete as failing WP:RS, and therefore WP:V and WP:N. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John G. Temple[edit]

Delete contested prod; a tv series producer so nn that it has no sources, no significant coverage in RSes, as required for WP:N and WP:BIO, and has the redflags of non-notability as we don't know when or where he was born or even whether he's still alive. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Double Merge - I found some articles that verify that the information is true so it's not a WP:V issue. The article is so short that I can't see having even a stub for this. The information can be plugged into both Coronation Street and Take the High Road. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmedema (talk • contribs) 22:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 09:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - IMDB tells me he was producer for some episodes [30]. If anybody wants to make a case to mention that at the respective Tv series they can do so without a merge of the current unsourced oneliner.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cincoshop[edit]

Spanish TV channel, not notible in english Wikipedia RT | Talk 21:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Notability is notability. No language barriers apply. Wiki is global.-- AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 02:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not because it's a Spanish language network, but because it doesn't even exist yet. And when it does exist, and the article is actually written, provide some sources other than the network's own website. Corvus cornix_talk 03:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 16:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL without prejudice to recreation. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. I should note that the discussion at ArbCom does not cover this article as that discussion only applies to television characters per this clarification by Newyorkbrad. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Lillian[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just a plot repetition of a few incidents from the three Shrek movies, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Not notable in her own right - this is a character description and belongs in the article about the movie, not a separate article. If someone writes a Ph.D. thesis on "The transformational hermeneutics of Queen Lillian", then we can have a separate article. Please nominate all the other character articles, so we can delete them, too. Argyriou (talk) 06:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#OR. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to notability of Shrek franchise, reliable secondary sources that turned up quickly and easily with a Dogpile.com search, this assertion, and the injunction. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The motion you are referencing did not pass, there is no evidence yet that this really is the person in question, or if they have any reliable sources, as we cant just take his word on it. I'm not sure who you are trying to fool, so stop it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Enacted on 02:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)". Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - This AfD is not about a television character, and therefore is not covered by the injunction. So far, the only person who is a party to the ArbCom case is Le Grand Roi; the rest of us are making a good-faith effort to determine the compliance of this article with Wikipedia's policies, and should not be bound by patently silly injunctions aimed at reprobate edit-warriors. Argyriou (talk) 19:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The case is about television episodes and fictional characters. If you look at the evidence page and workshop, you'll see that video game character articles have also been under discussion. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see nothing useful in the existence of this article as a separate entity. Deb (talk) 13:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus to delete. This is after discounting all the ILKIEIT, OTHERCRAPEXISTS, and similar arguments made by the SoB supporters. Wading through all the SoBs' comments was great fun. (^_^) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: As there were a number of editors suggesting merging, I recommend taking that discussion to the appropriate talk page. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sons of Ben (MLS fan club)[edit]

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Request for deletion as subject lacks WP:NOT Mikerichi (talk) 08:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only not notable, but also totally lame. Linking to user pages from the article just shows what a joke it is. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - (after ec with User:Number 57) doesn't indicate any real notability. As an aside, it appears that there is a conflict of interest here, as all three founders have edited the article, as Bryanjames76, Dill0n and User:OKTerrific, with the latter two actually linked from the article text. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 09:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fancruft; a fan club for a team that doesn't even exist yet. Sheesh. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 10:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find this group mentioned in any of the other MLS pages on Wikipedia, and this page appears to have been created in Jan 2007 and the "fan club" says they were also created in Jan 2007, making this an obvious vanity page. In retrospect this should have been a request for speedy deletion. Mikerichi (talk) 12:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC) — Mikerichi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Merge into Philadelphia Major League Soccer team. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable group for a still non-existing team. --Angelo (talk) 16:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Philadelphia Major League Soccer team. While they are a bit too ladies tea for my liking they are a very notable group of over 1000 members with tons of Local and National press and television coverage. Google news search Sons of Ben to get more information --ChrissMari (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep All over Google News, Philadelphia just got a soccer stadium, www.sonsofben.com, this is a constant Wikipedia problem, the Internet stuff is given too much preference, not everything is all over the Internet (although this is, just not on pages Wikipedia editors are likely to look at) but is still notable. It would be a travesty to lose this page. It does need to be re-written to avoid linking to Wikipedia user pages and other frivolous nonsense. Whitey Cracker (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC) — Whitey Cracker (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

There are exactly 6 hits in Google news for this "Sons of Ben" (as opposed to the literary society) for all of 2007, all in local Philadelphia papers. 6 hits on Google News from local newspapers != "all over Google news." Considering this page was created by club members who are also Wikipedia editors 5 days after they started their club, how can you say this information "is not available to Wikipedia editors?" Mikerichi (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Sons of Ben are analogous to other MLS supporters' clubs such as La Barra Brava, the Screaming Eagles, the Texian Army, and the Empire Supporters Club. Not only have they received American press coverage, but coverage in FourFourTwo as well. Merging Sons of Ben with a Philadelphia team page is a short-term solution because information on the SoBs will overwhelm team news and a new page will get created anyway. Delmlsfan (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete fan teams are NN. Peanut4 (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into supporter section of Philadelphia Major League Soccer team. And similarly with Screaming Eagles, La Barra Brava, Texian Army, and Section 8 Chicago. Peanut4 (talk) 02:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This has become a European vs American distinction. If supporters' clubs from the USA want to have their own pages, then they should keep them. Is there a Law #18 that prohibits this? Delmlsfan (talk) 03:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not a distinction of whether a supporter's club is American or European (or Asian, or South American, e.t.c.), but the notability of such a club/group. And we don't just allow whoever wants a page to have a page - again we have inclusion criterion. The same applies to similar arguments made below much less politely. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 04:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP I read in Philadelphia Weekly that Wikipedia wants to delete Sons of Ben's page and this is an outrage. There are pages for crap like Goatse and bestiality but these soccer fans can't have their own page? It would be a travesty to lose this page, and as Delmlsfan says, once they get a team Sons of Ben will be a bigger story than the team itself! 68.81.181.116 (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC) — 68.81.181.116 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- You're taking the piss right? Some journalists give the rest of us a bad name. Talk about a slow news day. Peanut4 (talk) 01:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, here is the news story here. http://willdo.philadelphiaweekly.com/archives/2008/02/beloved_soccer.html Why can't these Wikipedia edoitors find something more constructive to do than bother a vibrant supporters group? 68.81.181.116 (talk) 09:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Big Keeper Let's not be silly. Yes they do not YET have a team, but it is definitely a real supports group, just like any other as can be seen by their huge presence at other MLS team games. There are ridiculous things found on Wikipedia. And it is just absurd to not allow a real organization to have their own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbeliever1 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC) — Tbeliever1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
KEEP Why do you even want to delete a legit group just becuase you do not like it. Can't you just not look at the page? Wikipedia is to inform people and anyone who may want to look up who the Sons of Ben are, or find any info on them won't be able to if you delete. Why don't you get a life or get a real hobby like the people in the Sons of Ben do, and stop surfing wikipedia and trying to piss people off for no reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carbacher19038 (talk • contribs) — Carbacher19038 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete Non-notable fan group. On a side note, for those advocating a merge to the Philly MLS team article.. It should be noted that there is no Philly MLS team at this point in time. MLS has not officially chosen Philly as it's next expansion team. The article seems to have been created in response to Pennsylvania approving funding to build a stadium complex in Chesterfield.[31] While this does improve the chances of Philly getting an MLS team, it does not mean that MLS will actually do so. Just ask Tampa Bay how quickly the "If you build it, they will come" theory worked. The Philly MLS team article should probably be nominated for deletion as WP:CRYSTAL. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 07:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and created an AFD for Philly MLS team.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 08:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep As stated before, the Philly and national media have widely covered the Sons of Ben, therefore deniability is not an excuse for deletion. Another point, the Sons of Ben fan club is much more notable than the alleged literary group of the same name.JaMikePA (talk) 15:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As stated before, despite false claims to the contrary, Google News has only 6 hits, all Philadelphia news sources, for the "Sons of Ben" MLS club in 2007. That does not meet WP:NOT by any stretch of the imagination. More importantly, your Weasel_words denigrating the Sons of Ben literary society do not bolster the notability of the Sons of Ben MLS club. A society studying a very well known English author is "alleged", while a society for a non-existent football club is real? Only in America... Mikerichi (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response Your POV is showing with that last comment. The Sons of Ben page was created over a year before you flagged it for deletion. If the article is as non-notable as you claim, wouldn't it have been flagged earlier - perhaps by US soccer fans who would have been on the lookout for it? I don't personally find organizations like IMUSA and Manchester United Supporters' Trust of interest, but would not dare flag them for deletion. Again, to be consistent with this request for deletion, flag the other MLS supporters' clubs pages for deletion as well. Delmlsfan (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Use of Google News? Use of Google News is invalid for determining notability of US soccer organizations. The sport is poorly covered in press media. Compare the hits for the DC United supporters group the Screaming Eagles over the same time frame. I found 7. The Sons of Ben must be extremely notable if they garnished 6. Delmlsfan (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seen this group mentioned a few times in the UK print media, e.g. FourFourTwo ran a multi-page feature on them in the last year or so. Their cause is pretty well known in world football coverage. Da-rb (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I was surprised to see this deletion request blurbed in Philadelphia Weekly, as mentioned above. This is a well known group among MLS fans and U.S. soccer fans in general, and as Da-rb mentioned above, has been featured several times in the U.K. print media. It is possible the page was created as a vanity page, but the group has grown to a size and significance at which it can sustain the page. Rolando (talk) 22:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What Now? - It has been five days. It has been established that the Sons of Ben have received the same level of press coverage (based on Google News) as other MLS supporters clubs. There have been several "keep" comments made by individuals who had no connection to the website. And, to be fair, the page has been cleaned up to Wikipedia standards. Let's remove the deletion tag now. Delmlsfan (talk) 02:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERCRAP. Peanut4 (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks like the page has been improved upon since the start of the AfD. Links to user pages are gone, notability is established. SoB is not merely a fan club but an advocacy group for a future MLS team in Philadelphia (my Delete vote for that article was based on WP:CRYSTAL; no such concerns exist for a group that already exists). They have received significant coverage in and out of the American soccer community, so there should be no WP:N issues. I don't see the big deal here. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 15:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Was gonna go for Delete, but seeing the media attention I think we should give the article a chance. BanRay 07:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see no evidence of notability established. The same "keep" advocates are claiming "They are mentioned all over Google News" despite only 6 mentions on Google News in 2007, while simultaneously claiming that "Google News is not a valid reference." They can't have it both ways. The only news mentions I've seen of this group are a handful of mentions in the Philadelphia media and one article in the Guardian written by Steven Wells of the Philadelphia Weekly. Additionally, the "keep" advocates seem to think this is a vote, which it of course is not, it is a discussion. The most obvious evidence of this being a vanity page that the "keep" advocates are ignoring is that this page was created 5 days after the group was founded. Finally, note that a "keep" advocate accused me of being a "sock puppet" for this delete vote being my first contribution when the first four "keep" advocates were also making their first contribution. I only see one or two "keep" advocates who have more than a handful of contributions that are not from the Philadelphia area. Mikerichi (talk) 09:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't see how SoB have any notability other than as a group affiliated (even if not officially) to the Phillies proposed MLS team. Therefore they deserve a mention but not an individual entry. Simply have as a separate supporters section for the Phillies MLS team. Peanut4 (talk) 09:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. By your logic, Screaming Eagles, La Barra Brava, Texian Army, and Section 8 Chicago should be deleted and/or merged too. I think this could end up being ruled Keep due to lack of consensus. Tom Danson (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - [32] That does appear to be his position, yes. :) Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 19:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment and still merge. I can't deny that supporters deserve a mention because they are an important part of any football team, but note the word part. They have no notability on their own. Plus see other WP:OTHERCRAP. Each of those listed should be added to a supporters section on the relevant team page. They have absolutely no reason to have their won separate entry and I've been entirely unconvinced of any other argument. Peanut4 (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Again, if this is your argument, suggest on WikiProject Football that all MLS supporters' clubs be merged. I suspect your proposal will be roundly dismissed. Delmlsfan (talk) 00:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment I think most, if not all, should be merged, yes. If you look at Category:Major League Soccer fan clubs the total of 17 clubs have a sum total of one reference. There are plenty of tags also on there. A couple of them may have their own notability, but most seem to be vain, unnotable entries independent of the football club itself and ought to go in a supporters section, as 99% of football articles have. If they are expanded enough and certainly if they earn their own notability then perhaps have a separate article.
        
        But above all the argument to come here as a reference doesn't hold. Simply set the pages up as a redirect to the aforementioned supporters section. And since their notability is key to the actual, it puts the supporters club in far better context, with more info and a much more relevant page. I'm far from saying delete these entries as NN. Just that their notability and breadth of coverage rarely is deserving of an individual page. One is even tagged as an orphaned article. Now what's the point in that? Peanut4 (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Hurry up. Another Toronto page was added yesterday. Delmlsfan (talk) 03:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whoooooooooooooomp there it is. Whitey Cracker (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP! Why are we even having this discussion? I heard about SoB in an article, and Wikipedia was the first place I turned to find out more. Shall I stop thinking of Wikipedia as an information source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.227.137.71 (talk) 18:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. The Sons of Ben have done a lot to show that Philadelphia is ready and waiting for an MLS frabchise. What other city would do this. Just because the city doesn't have a team doesn't mean it can't have a supporters club. Once it does, it will already have a solid fanbase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.250.184.246 (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Philadelphia Major League Soccer team (I understand that that article is also subject to an afd, but I have voted to keep it). The fact that a fan club has been established (and there has been media coverage of that fact) is one of the things which makes the movement for a Philadephia MLS club notable; I do not believe the subject to be notable enough in its own right to merit an article, BUT I do believe that a fan club for a team which does not yet exist is interesting enough to confer notability on the article about the potential team (given that it has attracted media attention and therefore is the subject of secondary sources). Robotforaday (talk) 21:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no decision per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Proposed decision#Halt to activities. Feel free to nominate again after the ArbCom decision is finally made. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dan and Jenny Gordon[edit]

No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context Jay32183 (talk) 08:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 22:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Posted a note on the charmed page about this AfD. Hobit (talk) 15:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jonny-m t 08:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. They were important characters during the show's second season and the article may need some explain expansion, but there's no reason to delete it.LoveLaced (talk) 03:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Actually, no sources is a perfect reason to delete it. Importance to the plot is not a reason to keep it and is completely irrelevant in an AFD. Jay32183 (talk) 06:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - well it's not as if it's completely unsourced. right now there's only four, but it's also a relatively short page. i'm sure it could be expanded and have ADDITIONAL sources.LoveLaced (talk) 05:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's only referenced to the show itself. There needs to be sources providing real world context. You must show that the sources exist. Assuming they are out there is not acceptable, otherwise nothing would be deleted. Jay32183 (talk) 08:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - as do all of the other character pages from this show, but no one seems to be making an effort to have them deleted. it seems like someone's trying to have them deleted because they weren't the main characters. i don't really know how you would source a fictional character when there are no real world sources in a fictional universe? LoveLaced (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It's not all or nothing. We can deal with the problem Charmed articles one at a time. Other character articles have real world context, like Jason Vorhees. If what we already have here is what you're looking for, perhaps you should work in a Charmed wiki. If Wikia has one I have no problem with a proper transwiki before deleting the article here. Jay32183 (talk) 23:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Delete. you're right. and for the record, i wasn't trying to argue, i'm still learning all things wiki. =p LoveLaced (talk) 05:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't judge the notability of these characters as I didn't watch the show, but this article surely does not assert their real-world significance. As far as I can see, the Charmed articles don't have a List of character in Charmed, which could serve as a good merge target for all of the show's characters. Unfortunately, the show's articles also seems to have been abandoned by fans, with no one volunteering for the necessary cleanup work. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the halt to activities pertaining to fictional characters. Plus article does contain some sources and LoveLaced does indicate that they were recognizable characters in a notable show. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The halt works in both directions. It should actually halt this discussion, not determine its result. Jay32183 (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, then I'll refrain from adding additional keep reasons. Have a nice night! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B. M. Sendlinger[edit]

Unclear notability, no independent sources. The article on the Swedish Wikipedia has been deleted as "PR article for an unknown author whose only book has been published by a print on demand publishing house".

I am also nominating the article about his book for deletion (this one, too, has been deleted on the Swedish Wikipedia):

Delete both nominated articles. Book fails WP:BK, and therefore author fails WP:BIO. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 08:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 02:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jonny-m t 08:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the presumption that the nom is correct (along with the Swedes). --Dhartung | Talk 09:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dhartung.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both « D. Trebbien (talk) 19:25 2008 February 3 (UTC)

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Tubbs[edit]

This footballer has never played at a fully professional level therefore he does not meet the requirements of WP:BIO ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails WP:BIO#Athletes. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 09:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO#Athletes. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. --Angelo (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and next time I beg you to use prod first before resorting to AfD, this kind of article should not come to AfD unless a last resort. Qwghlm (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the heated debate that has occurred in the past about notability of Conference players I figured any PROD would probably be disputed so it was easier just to bring it atraight to AfD in the first place..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable; fails WP:BIO. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 03:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possible snowball. Fails WP:BIO. Peanut4 (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Freda[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Previously nominated and kept without a lot of discussion, this article still doesn't demonstrate any independent notability for Freda. Very few sources are about Freda himself rather than merely quoting the fact that he's leader of this organisation (which, incidentally, doesn't appear massively notable itself; I was surprised to only find 95 unique GHits, and most of those mirrors or blogs). I boldly redirected the article to the organization's, and was reverted, so bringing here. Black Kite 07:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I came up with a lot more Google results with your search terms. Re; hits, republicanism is only a hot item whenever the royal family has a scandal or there's a royal visit. So if you're nominating this for deletion because of Google hits, it's just plain wrong. Re; independent notability, what is it you're looking for? The organization is internationally recognized as Canada's republican movement. Freda is a founder, director and spokesperson for a national organization. When republicanism comes up in the news, he's on all the major TV news networks and radio talk shows (where I first heard of him). If that's not notable, then what is? Check for yourself. http://www.canadian-republic.ca/media_exposure.html And I don't get why this has come up again. From what I've seen, this was settled before with only a couple of people voting for deletion. MC Rufus (talk) 08:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm not entirely sure what the story is here, but I just checked the deletion guidelines and this entry meets or exceeds notability. Also, it says this: "Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (e.g., Google hits or Alexa ranking)." Please explain. MC Rufus (talk) 08:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your search is the same as mine. Go down the bottom of the page and click on the "10" which takes you to page 10 of the search. You will see that there are only 95 unique GHits, regardless of what Google tells you on the first page. However this isn't really the point; I am aware of the Google criteria, but this isn't an AfD for the CCR; I am merely pointing out that it isn't a major organization. The real problem here, as the nomination says, is the lack of independent sources of the notability of Freda. There may be some available; if so, and they can be added, then that's fine. Black Kite 11:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so the Google hits as a reason for deletion are out. For independent sources what more could you need than the National Post and CTV external links? Both were national exposure and acknowledge his notability. Are these not good enough? Look, I'm committed to providing accurate and credible material and I have asked for it (and photos) from CCR. I expect it soon. I don't want to go to all this trouble and then have it end up deleted.MC Rufus (talk) 15:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Citizens for a Canadian Republic (which I have tagged with ((primary sources)), although Google News tells me some may exist). Insufficient independent notability. --Dhartung | Talk 09:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep surely being the leader of an organization that opposes its government system, is notable. GoodDay (talk) 13:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Surely it takes more than just opposing your government system? --Dhartung | Talk 18:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the old days, Freda's politics may have been considered treasonist. He's is calling for a Republic. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, on Newsworld last Victoria Day, he said he and other CCR members have had death threats. re above comment, I took it mean that he is notable because he is "successfully" oposing the government. Republicanism is in the news a lot lately and it's always Freda or some other CCR person arguing the republican side.Jaye Peghtyff (talk) 20:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reasons noted above. And although I just noticed he already has a bio on the CCR website, this page is deserving because of the significance of the CCR and his notability as a nationally recognized voice of the republican movement.MC Rufus (talk) 15:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per Dhartung. Freda has some notability, but there doesn't seem to be enough useful information to warrant his own article, especially when one exists for the only thing that makes him notable. --G2bambino (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NC Rufus has improved this page considerably and says there is more to come. As it is, there is more than enough natability to warrant keeping it. That would be obvious to anyone who takes the time to view the video and news item alone. Jaye Peghtyff (talk) 20:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Lede should have a solid statement of why the organization is notable. Otherwise seems like a great start. I would also add some refs to show him being interviewed by RS and a bio infobox. Expect more vandalism from opposition likely only to be twarted with more refs. Benjiboi 07:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment. I added infobox, please correct any errors and fill in stuff i may have missed. Benji boi 22:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Entheon[edit]

Delete. Neologism, not referenced, notability not established. WWGB (talk) 07:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Wikipedia is not a dictionary." As the nominator stated, it's an unreferenced page defining a neologistic "word". Probably shouldn't even be in Wictionary, but better there (well, more appropriate is probably the better way to say it) than here. VigilancePrime (talk) 07:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --John (talk) 07:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails multiple policies.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 03:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with all above. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Cain[edit]

no source given and no proof can be found that this person actually existed (Hockeydb.com has none) Mayumashu (talk) 02:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think I found him here. This source by itself doesn't represent "significant coverage" as defined by WP:N, but he does appear to be real. Someone else can dig deeper. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 04:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect he is the Jack Cain at hockeydb with different birth dates, birth place. he played minor league hockey but never in the NHL Mayumashu (talk) 02:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jonny-m t 07:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - no notability, one sentence. Is this a real question? If an actual article, even a stub, could be formed, sure, but not this. The AfD notice is 80% of the page! VigilancePrime (talk) 07:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep based on discussion. Wizardman 14:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flicky (bird)[edit]

This is a character page with no assertion of real world information or notability. This also cites NO SOURCES. -- ZeroGiga (Contact) 00:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 16:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jonny-m t 07:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

so tag it... (Keep) - Far from the least of Wikipedia articles, when one looks at things like tar baby, cooties, Fish of Oklahoma (a list page... argh!), fuzzy dice, and the multitudes of other tiny, unreferenced, non-notables, this one stands out as a good article at least in its formatting and decent, non-stub size. Not being bound by paper encyclopedia limitations, why shouldn't we keep this? Marginal, yes, but absolutely keep-able. VigilancePrime (talk) 07:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Any further renaming or merging discussions should be held at the appropriate talk pages. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pulong Buhangin, Santa Maria[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Pulong Buhangin, Sta. Maria

This article is a barangay. A barangay is the smallest political unit in the Philippines, a part of either a city or municipality, so they are NOT towns. So given the small size of barangays, naturally, almost all of them would not be notable, even though they'd have high populations. The only barangays that should be notable may be barangays that have large significant literature about them. This barangay doesn't have any. --Howard the Duck 03:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Per nom, this is non-notable. From Barangay: "Historically, a barangay is a relatively small community of around 50 to 100 families." From the municipality article (Santa Maria, Bulacan), this is the only one of 24 barangays to have a page. Per (an admittedly microcosm of) WP:OSE, none of these pages meet notability standards unless there's something of particular note or import in this particular one, which the article in question does not assert. VigilancePrime (talk) 07:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salangbato, Philippines on why I think any political unit is a valid topic. Also, this one is large, a population over 15000 is a large community and virtually a town in itself. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - SJ does have a point, and as I think about my reasoning a second time, I am inclined to remember something someone wrote to me once when I asked about geographic features... she said that, in her experience, virtually every geographic feature is "notable enough". Well, when you can have non-towns and barely-populated areas such as Moolack Beach with a page, why couldn't a sub-municipality as well? I'm not sold on the local government unit having free reign in some sort of "inherent notability" paradigm, but I can see where this has a notability simply for being a populated, geographically-identifiable place. Hence the vote change. I stand by the comments above, though, and feel that WP:OSE could be used to argue in both directions on this one and thus it is not an adequate argument for either. Status Quo is always to err on the side of keep, should no consensus or borderline policy be met. VigilancePrime (talk) 07:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Replies: See my reply on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salangbato, Philippines page. --Howard the Duck 11:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom or Merge to Santa Maria, Bulacan since people seem to think 15,000 as a large enough settlement (my school's pop'n is even large than that).--Lenticel ^(talk) 09:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Santa Maria, Bulacan. Almost all barangays in the Philippines are not notable enough in themselves to merit individual articles in Wikipedia and there is a problem of getting enough reliable sources to create a full-fledged article. A simple Google search does not turn up any non-trivial reliable sources that refer to this barangay. --seav (talk) 10:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep political units are inherently notable. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. There comes a point when some geographical unit is too small or too trivial that it doesn't deserve its own article and should instead be aggregated elsewhere. A blanket statement like "X's have inherent notability" is not a good argument in itself. You have to back it up with more substantial arguments. --seav (talk) 01:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Geography:"Geological features named on maps, such as Willow Creek Pass (Montana), are verifiable and so acceptable".--brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barangays aren't just purely geographical areas. They are political units, made up of people. Willow Creek Pass (Montana) is a landform, barangays, not really. --Howard the Duck 02:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

then a fortiori!--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Show me the "policy" where all political units are notable. --Howard the Duck 02:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: I don't get it either why you're so into saving these articles. Do you really know what a barangay is? You can't really easily have a parallel comparison to similarly-sized communities elsewhere in the world. --Howard the Duck 03:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: I don't get it either why you're so into deleting these articles. Do you really know what a barangay is? You can really easily have a parallel comparison to similarly-sized communities elsewhere in the world. VigilancePrime (talk) 03:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to PS: Because, as a Filipino, I know what a barangay really is and they're not comparable to similarly sized communities elsewhere in the planet. You should know the context where these communities are applied at. You may also want to read the comment below: --Howard the Duck 03:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You see, Howard, I'm really inclined to agree with deletion, but the "they are too small" argument doesn't do it for me. We have articles on geographic-type places with populations of 12 (link was above). If this is deleted, that's fine. I'm not entirely convinced either way, but the default has to be to keep. That's all. VigilancePrime (talk) 04:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After reading unincorporated area, it is a community that is not a part of any municipality. Ergo, if you'd compare municipality and unincorporated area, they have the same rank, the only differemce is that unincorporated area isn't incorporated. Now following the political divisions in the U.S., it'll be state->county/parishes->city/municipality/unincorporated area, a third-level subdivision. In the Philippines, it's regions->provinces/some cities->most cities/municipalities-> barangays, a fourth-level subdivision. Ergo, it is not correct to compare unincorporated areas and barangays by basis of political power, let alone context. --Howard the Duck 04:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Common Outcomes is not a guideline much less policy. It just documents what's been the result of many AfD and is not policy. So appealing to it is also not a convincing argument in itself. So it would be best if you argue about saving this article on the subject's merits. I have plainly stated my reasons being that there can be no reliable sources about these barangays from which to source a full article about it. Note that I haven't said that there shouldn't be any mention about these barangays in Wikipedia, just that barangays don't deserve individual articles. I should know, I'm Filipino.--seav (talk) 09:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment I did once consider nominating the electoral wards of the London Borough of Brent, back when a number of borough councillors were AfD'ed - some of the 21 wards don't have articles, some do (written by estate agents trying to sell houses there, to judge by the prose); but I decided it was too much hassle. This is just to explain that I'm not convinced by Brewcrewer's assertion that "political units are inherently notable". Not all wards are notable, although I'd agree entirely that all boroughs are, and the articles on the boroughs should list the wards. This looks to be the same difference in a Philippine context. --Paularblaster (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, then edit, and move to "Barangay Pulong Buhangin, Santa Maria, Bulacan". Several notable references and locations have surfaced including: a population census as of May 2000, a 100-year-old church, its contribution to the province's firecracker industry, a prominent hotel and resort that is used as location for several local drama series, an extended branch campus of Polytechnic University of the Philippines, and possibly many others. Starczamora (talk) 03:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete, spam and copyvio. Pegasus «C¦T» 04:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rob H Kelly[edit]

Non-notable, no references since July 2007, COI - author appears to be the subject. Is he more famous in Ireland than Google can show? Yamara ✉ 06:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY Delete - CopyVio likely. Copy-n-paste from MySpace, etc. Non-notable, résumé. VigilancePrime (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable as it fails the critera for WP:MUSIC and no reliable third party sources to back up any content. The only sources I could find was merely trivial coverage and that was checking the Irish version of Google with the "Pages only from Ireland" box checked. So that also looks like verifiability of content is possibly out the window. AngelOfSadness talk 20:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, G12 per VigilancePrime. A copyvio several times over. Blueboy 96 02:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely non-notable MySpace person; Google doesn't reveal anything convincing. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 03:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged it as Speedy since it is a clear cut-n-paste job. VigilancePrime (talk) 04:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bargo Rural Fire Brigade[edit]

Non-notable fire brigade. Jmlk 1 7 06:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Could be a notable article. It's new and could be given time to grow. If the logo were to be uploaded and included, along with a good, wikified base text, it'd be better off in terms of keep-ability. Anyone know what the prevailing precedent is for fire companies? Is there any sort of general, inherent consensus? This article has the potential for a decent-sized article and should be given the time to grow. (Geez, how can it be any less notable than fuzzy dice or vorpal or tar baby?) VigilancePrime (talk) 07:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very narrow scope of notability and I doubt many people outside the area care about this fire company. Local fire stations do not need a page on wikipedia, unless they have some claim to fame or broad notability Corpx (talk) 09:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bargo, New South Wales. The fire brigade is a major public service, but for a small community mainly of very local notability. Brigade appears to be already covered there. (Incidentally, the Bargo article is in need of some overhaul.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Sjakkale and WP:LOCAL. Every locale has fire protection, so existing does not confer notability. --Dhartung | Talk 09:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the dual speedy-tagging at its previous home and per the reasons at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rockland_Paramedic_Services, which I believe apply here as well. Travellingcari (talk) 13:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as notability is only on a local scale, and per the essay WP:LOCAL. If it was on a TV documentary like Police Camera Action! or Pussycat Dolls Present: The Search for the Next Doll then it would be automatically notable per WP:NOTE, but right now, it doesn't seem that way. --Solumeiras (talk) 13:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep (closed by non-admin). RMHED (talk) 21:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prakash Chandra lohani[edit]

Relevance mitrebox (talk) 06:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as an unsourced (non-notable) bio/résumé. VigilancePrime (talk) 06:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Finance Minister of Nepal. His speeches get full articles in the newspaper written about them [33]. 500+ more: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. cab (talk) 07:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 07:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Apparently not the current Finance Minister[34] but has been in the past and has also served as Foreign Minister[35], bot positions conferring inherent notability. --Dhartung | Talk 10:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, source, and cleanup. He has held multiple national cabinet level posts since the 1980s and a Google web, news and book searches indicate abundant WP.RS coverage available to fix this article. • Gene93k (talk) 11:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to speedy keep this one. High-level political appointments of any nation are surely adequate for notability, unless there is a suspicion of hoax. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Worth Adult Soccer Association[edit]

Relevance mitrebox (talk) 06:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable. Unless notability can be established with some sort of reference (and some actual content would be good too, instead of empty section headings). Reads like a bio/vanity page, but for an organization. Could be userfied until sufficient for mainspace (e.g. referenced, notability asserted). VigilancePrime (talk) 06:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very limited scope of notability (if any) Corpx (talk) 09:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LOCAL and WP:NOT#DIR. --Dhartung | Talk 09:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable soccer association. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 03:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep (closed by non-admin). RMHED (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hickory High School (North Carolina)[edit]

Possible CW issues mitrebox (talk) 06:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability issues as well - all references are related to the school or athletics. Wisdom89 (talk) 06:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Precedent has been set per WP:OSE and many other discussions; High Schools have an inherant notability. Granted, the article sucks. It's been tagged (a ton of tags), but quality and notability are distinctly different. It needs major attention and a lot of scalpeling (something which I usually vehemently oppose!), but its existence is well within the scope and existing consensus regarding high schools, notability, and precedent. VigilancePrime (talk) 06:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Winning 27 state baseball championships, plus many football state championships, certainly indicates notability and a direct inclusion qualifier from the proposed WP:Notability (schools) ; "A school winning a notable sporting or academic event (including, but not limited to, state and national sports championships)." And nominating an article that's not obvious vandalism or spam within an hour of it's creation and making no effort to improve the article is counter-productive to the improvement of this project. --Oakshade (talk) 07:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources are cited in the article, and I can't find any via Google [36] so does not pass WP:N. WP:SCHOOLS is currently only a proposal, and even that section of the proposal requires that more than just having winning sports teams is needed to establish notability. There is no consensus on high schools being automatically notable (prove me wrong - WP:OUTCOMES says that there "consensus is frequently not reached" on this issue) so WP:N fully applies here as there are no special exceptions for high schools. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --- I suppose the hits from the Charlotte Observer are about this school. cab (talk) 11:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 11:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, there is a lot to clean up, but Keep as an inherently notable high school. Nyttend (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - major high school that is notable due to the high number of state championships. Needs a big cleanup but AfD is not a cleanup squad. Plenty of sources available to meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Above and beyond the general consensus on WP:Inherent notability of high schools, this article establishes a strong claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 21:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hickory, North Carolina Mandsford (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep regardless of what one thinks about whether all high schools are likely to be notable, this one clearly is. A very long string of athletic championships. DGG (talk) 06:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are certainly a lot of sports awards "27 state baseball championships" tells me there must be some reference sources out there. Article needs work but shows potential for future expansion. Sting au Buzz Me... 03:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Besides its many athletics titles, the school has a long and substantial history that needs to be expanded. Stuff like integration and race relations have non-trivial coverage. Searches on predecessor Claremont Central High also indicate non-trivial history. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Large amount of information for sports achievements and notable faculty. I have added additional details for the article on the article's talk page. --Daddy.twins (talk) 20:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep (closed by non-admin). RMHED (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Professor John Rickard[edit]

Unsourced. Dubious mitrebox (talk) 06:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

references added--Bgonch (talk) 06:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current Delete - Unless notability can be asserted. The text states consultations and journal articles... use these as references and as external links to express notability and this can be considered a keep "vote" instead. VigilancePrime (talk) 07:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability per WP:PROF established. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 14:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 04:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep "President and Vice Chancellor of Central Queensland University? etc etc etc. included a named chair-- all of which can be sourced from official sources at the various universities. What does the nom think "dubious"? whether university presidents are notable? whether he was a university president? whether everything put out by the university is an internet fraud? DGG (talk) 06:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per DGG. The President/Vice Chancellor of a major university should be enough alone. The links are to his faculty page, which provide appropriate verification of this fact. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep He is the Vice-Chancellor of a university. This is the senior executive role at universities in Australia as the Chancellor's role is basically a ceremonial one. As such he is clearly notable and relevant sources will be found. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 20:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Of course, VCs in Australia are notable. There will be masses of sources. --Bduke (talk) 06:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

note--the article has been moved to John Rickard (academia). I'm not sure its the ideal title, but its an improvement. The other John Rickeard in a UK economist & public servant & he is an Australian economist, so maybe nationality is the distinction to use. DGG (talk) 09:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's originaly English, so nationality wouldn't be a good distinction. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the title as exists at present is kept, it should be "academic" not "academia". JRG (talk) 11:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I chose "academia" rather then "academic" becasue as he's currently a Vice-Chancellor, he's more of a school leader then a teacher. But I don't have a major issue if it is moved to "academic". --brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per above, given that VCs in Australia are notable and being unsourced is not a deletion reason (though notability is). JRG (talk) 11:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It doesn't bother me whether this is kept, but how does being a VC satisfy WP:BIO and exactly how does this person meet WP:PROF? Publishing lots of papers doesn't equate to notability in Wikipedia. Otherwise, the article falls foul of WP:N. Assize (talk) 02:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Publishing a large number of articles and/or books should be in the guideline if it is not explicitly. Do they not exist because they have only appeared in peer-reviewed journals and not the popular press? That might cut out a large swath of past academics who didn't have a popular press to dumb down their research for them. Ansell 04:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy keep No questions about a VC, or even any Australian academic who gets to the level of Professor, they can't get there without being notable in a field. Ansell 04:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The result was Speedy delete non-admin closure--Lenticel ^(talk) 09:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Helene waagene[edit]

no page here mitrebox (talk) 06:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. By "no page" you probably mean no content or context, which means A1 and/or A3 apply. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 06:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Merge a brief discussion of the book in the bio of Doug Owram. JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promise of Eden: the Canadian Expansionist Movement and the Idea of the West 1856-1900[edit]

30 year old textbook of dubious nature. Work was a publication of a doctoral student. WP is not self promotion. mitrebox (talk) 06:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promise of Eden is actually considered one of the definitive books on the Canadian expansionist movement, and set the tone for decades of research in the field. Doug Owram, although a doctoral student when writing the book, went on to a significant career as a historian at the University of Alberta. I am unsure where the notion of 'self-promotion' was evident in the article. I feel the article, although obvioulsy in its early stages, should not be deleted. Wheateater (talk) 06:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. At this time, it's difficult to make a determination about the notability of this particular book, though if it set the tone for decades of research, it shouldn't be hard to find sources that mention it. Until that time, most of the article's text would seem to be a nice addition to Post-Confederation Canada (1867-1914), one of the History of Canada series.

This does not appear to be a textbook, FWIW. One of these days, I may get around to writing an article about Marjorie W. Hamilton's Pirates and Pathfinders, a right peculiar textbook I studied in grade school in Canada, many years ago. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Doug Owram.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

30 year old textbook of dubious nature

The age of the book has no bearing whatsoever on its inclusion/exclusion in WP. It is not a textbook, it is a study. Dubious nature is hard to qualify. If the University of Alberta in Edmonton has more than 15 copies of the book in its holdings, can it be that dubious?

The work of a doctoral student

When writing a thesis, an academic engages in innovative and new research. All academics 'cut their teeth' so to speak by researching their thesis. Again, this shouldn't be a reason to exlcude a book.

WP is not self-promotion

I doubt Owram wrote this article. That one doesn't make sense.

198.166.246.37 (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a brief discussion of the book in the bio of Doug Owram. He's written other important books, and that would be the place for a paragraph on this one. We usually do not list individual academic books unless they are truly exceptionally notable.I support very strongly articles on academics, but I dont support expansion of our coverage very far into articles on individual works. DGG (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete all as defunct. Neıl ☎ 15:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current events in Hong Kong[edit]

Attempt to coordinate current events in Hong Kong in the main article namespace. The last non-vandlism/reversion edit was made on November 9, and the function of keeping tabs on recent news seems to have been superceded by Portal:Hong Kong. As such, I am nominating the page to eliminate redundency and per WP:NOT#NEWS. jonny-m t 05:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum - apparently there's more. Lots more. I'm bundling all of these together.

September 2007 in Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
August 2007 in Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
July 2007 in Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
June 2007 in Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
May 2007 in Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
April 2007 in Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
March 2007 in Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
February 2007 in Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
January 2007 in Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
December 2006 in Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
November 2006 in Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
October 2006 in Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
September 2006 in Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
August 2006 in Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
July 2006 in Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
June 2006 in Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--jonny-m t 05:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this belongs on WikiNews. Marlith (Talk) 05:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This stuff belongs to Wikinews -Ravichandar 06:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. More suitable at wikinews Corpx (talk) 09:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not even notable for WikiNews, I would say -- reads like a blog or community notes page. Very few things listed would merit article or even significant mention in related articles. --Dhartung | Talk 10:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 13:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-- yep, eradicate them all. They're all redundant. Snake66 (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This information would be better listed under a page on the Hong Kong handover Georgiamonet (talk) 04:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was trolling.. - auburnpilot talk 01:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Through the Looking Glass (Lost)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia is not a collection of plot summaries. Another issue is notability--Makesbasis (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the references section clearly demonstrates notability. Marlith (Talk) 05:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I wonder what new people who are visiting Wikipedia for the first time will think of seeing this AfD tag on the first article they see. Marlith (Talk) 05:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Bad faith nomination, especially considering the article is a main page FA today. Lovelac 7 05:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep yeah obviously...too bad it got nominated...--DatDoo (talk) 05:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep this is an absurd nomination. If this is deleted there are literally thousands of other articles which would have to be deleted as well. - Atarr (talk) 05:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article gives information on production, reception, and over a hundred references. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 05:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Methinks thy saber be a bit pointy. --jonny-m t 06:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge and redirect to HP Photosmart. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HP Photosmart E427[edit]

I believe that this is an non notable type of digital camera Marlith (Talk) 05:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to HP Photosmart Colonel Warden (talk) 10:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to HP Photosmart per Colonel Warden. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Colonel Warden « D. Trebbien (talk) 04:44 2008 February 4 (UTC)

The result was merge and redirect to HP Photosmart. Someone should have been WP:BOLD and just done that rather than bring it here. Merge discussions do not need to go through AfD. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HP E-series[edit]

I believe that this is an non notable line of digital cameras. Marlith (Talk) 05:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into HP Photosmart. Not seeing any evidence for your belief. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to HP Photosmart per Colonel Warden. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete - WP:CSD#G10 Attack page. Mattinbgn\^talk 07:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Atkins[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This was originally flagged as a hoax, because a Google search for the subject plus unique terms from the article produces no results. The author has since provided a single reference that identifies the subject by name, so it appears now to be a real person. Based on that, the page could be an attack page and possibly speedied. User also admitted to me in an email that he has no verifiable, third-party sources to back up his claims, meaning it's also entirely original research. Significant WP:BLP concerns also make me believe this should simply be speedied. Gromlakh (talk) 05:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: It does not appear that this is related to the Scott Atkins who was previously deleted in another AfD. Gromlakh (talk) 05:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:SOAP. I have already tagged Glacier capital fund for speedy deletion because it appears to exist only to attack Atkins. Dethme0w (talk) 06:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just re-read this article. These accusations are serious and totally unsourced, and the article would require a complete rewrite to become objective. We cannot keep this article. I am going to tag it for speedy per G10. It would fail A7 anyway. Dethme0w (talk) 06:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Griffiths[edit]

No indication of passing WP:MUSIC. Google returns few hits which mainly appear to be unrelated. No reliable secondary sources mention this musician or his music. The only assertion of notability in the article is the single "Peace", yet I can find no evidence of its existence. There appear to be two minor, local bands which have a member named Liam Griffiths, but I can't tell if either is the subject of the article since there are no corroborating sources. In fact, he listed as a bassist in one and a drummer in the other, yet this article is about a singer named Liam Griffiths. Regardless, both of the bands appear to completely non-notable themselves being typical highschool Myspace bands. Doctorfluffy (talk) 05:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball delete. Totally non-notable, fails WP:V. Unfortunately it cannot be a speedy A7 because it asserts notability of a kind - but that assertion of notability is quite likely a lie.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Kurykh 00:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Myzery[edit]

Non-notable rapper. Wails WP:MUSIC and WP:N. Poeloq (talk) 05:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Appears to fail WP:MUSIC, but I'm not sure on this one - if his albums were on notable labels he might just pass WP:N per precedent at Pooh-Man. Has an All Music Guide entry giving less than rudimentary information (just proof that he existed and released an album).--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article doesn't show how the WP:MUSIC standard is met. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources. --DerRichter (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unacceptable. Myzery is widely known to the fans of the Insane Clown Posse, the majority of his solo albums are out of print, but, his work with Psychopathic Rydas is very common, my suggestion, next time any of you feel as if you need to slap on a deletion notice, at least do some research them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.153.235.147 (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On A Side Note The fans of Psychopathic Records (Juggalos) probably would not allow this article to be deleted, they would just keep recreating it. If it wails from the WP:MUSIC then just re-arrange it so it meets the proper standards and rules, but, deleting this article would be like deleting Three 6 Mafia to some people as of myself.

Crackaveli--4.153.239.71 (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if they keep re-creating it, it will either be protected or speedy deleted each time (unless the guidelines are met). And: You can't really compare Myzery with Three Six Mafia, as Three Six Mafia have won Academy Awards, featured on soundtracks of well known movies and appeared on well known TV shows and movies. Poeloq (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Rafael Uribazo Garrido[edit]

This is one of a batch of articles created by a WP:SPA to populate Category:Cuban contemporary artists that they created (the subject of a WP:COI/N that resulted in a bot removing 145 WP:LINKSPAM URLs from the articles ... it lacks any WP:RS attribution to WP:Verify the WP:BIO notability criteria ... an expired, seconded PROD was declined by Some Other Editor so I have opened this AfD. —The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk · contribs) 05:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable artist. MBisanz ^talk 05:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources. Though I can't be sure he's non-notable, I couldn't find anything on Google with substantive commentary on his work, that appeared to be an edited web site or paper publication. Since he has lived in Spain for 18 years his work could have received press attention there, but we don't see any trace of that in the article. EdJohnston (talk) 05:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Article easily establishes notability, but it's unverified. Maybe someone can track down a Spanish-language source? --brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC) Currently has refs. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This man is one of a group of Cuban artists that we don't know much about, but was added en masse some time ago by someone who may be operating an art gallery. It's technically true that we don't see any adequate secondary sources. In response to Brewcrewer, if you are confident of this artist's notability, which of the following clauses do you believe Uribazo Garrido satisfies?

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries, museums or internationally significant libraries. EdJohnston (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply.Carlos Rafael Uribazo Garrido#Awards satisfies "(c) has won significant critical attention." --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given the awards, shows, and museum collection, he;'s probably notable enough, though none of them are really spectacular. DGG (talk) 05:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an artist who has yet to become notable, fringe at best. Polly (Parrot) 21:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP. My understanding that if someone is notable in another language of Wikipedia they are notable in ALL wikipedias. Since he is in Spanish Wikipedia, he is notable. Callelinea (talk) 04:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This is a "Chicken and egg" problem ... Antonio Vidal Fernández was copied from the English Wiki to the Spanish Wiki, so "if someone is notable in another language of Wikipedia they are notable in ALL wikipedias" is a specious argument ... the clone of a NN article is still NN. —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 15:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. notable~~, but Spanish-language refs are needed.~~ and referenced --brew crewer (yada, yada) 08:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've tried to find reliable sources that mention him and haven't been able to, and I'm not convinced of the notability of the awards he has supposedly won (again we don't even have sources to show he's won them). -- Atama ^chat 16:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I invite editors to investigate and either improve or delete the articles in this Cuban artists checklist ... if you decline or second a PROD, please update the checklist ... Happy Editing! —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) _{02:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)}[reply]
VERY STRONG KEEP. I did a check in Amazon books and two books mention him. I am working on a group of about 150 Cuban artists trying to get them references and editing their pages. Again I must repeat I think it real "sucks" that people with no knowledge on subjects to just vote to get rid of articles without reading the articles and realizing that the person in question might be notable and that all they need is some references. Callelinea (talk) 05:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Callelinea, usually we only 'vote' once. Addhoc (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Addhoc (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Kurykh 00:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karzahni[edit]

contested prod. Original research essay for a non-notable term from the Bioncle universe. Ridernyc (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nom: this article fails WP:NOT#PLOT,WP:WAF, and WP:FICT. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for all the reasons Gavin cites. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WhatsUp Gold[edit]

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:COI.Was speedied under WP:CSD#G11. Has a few links but they seem to be press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions. 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. which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines. Advert. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Self-Promotion, fails G11 Doc Strange (talk) 17:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. KurtRaschke (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I edited the article to address the notability concern, in particular adding an article about the company from The Boston Globe, which can hardly be described as trivial. I also removed the link to the press release to address your concerns. I've also had other people in the industry look at the entry and they don't see a problem with it.Gtewallace (talk) 13:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Ipswitch, Inc., the article on the company. Very borderline. --Dhartung | Talk 10:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the "sources" consist of a single solid review, a one-line mention in a more obscure publication, and an article which is about the parent company, not the software, and thus totally irrelevant. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orange - I disagree that an article about the parent company is totally irrelevant to the software, and I found several examples on Wikipedia where references to the company are included on product articles (Tivoli Software, Coca-Cola, to name two). I decided to include just one review because it is representative and I thought it would be redundant (and would lean towards advertising) to list a series of reviews all of which basically say the same thing. All this being said, I think Dhartung's recommendation to merge with the Ipswitch, Inc. article is very sensible.Gtewallace (talk) 15:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete - I believe WhatsUp Gold is one of the most popular network management applications and is used by thousands of network administrators. I think it has been around for more than a decade. It is known by the product name NOT the company name, so people probably won't think to search for it by the company name. I'm sure there are many articles written about the product in the networking publications. I have read a few myself. I'll see if I can find some and add them to the article. The article does seem to focus too much on the company and not enough on the product. I suggest moving the unique company info to the company page and adding a better description of the product's purpose and functionality to this article.--KRS24 (talk) 03:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge and redirect to BookCrossing. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BookRelay[edit]

The site itself no longer exists. When removing no longer useful information, such as the FAQ, it's reduced down to a small blurb which was easily added to BookCrossing, where it naturally fit. I was the one who'd tagged it for merger but then realised it was just simpler to add a few lines. Travellingcari (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: and when it did exist there was relatively little coverage that wasn't about particular site offerings. Travellingcari (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into BookCrossing. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
:: Comment disagree on the grounds that the essential information is already covered in BookCrossing and this would be redundant. The vast majority of the content of this article is moot i.e. FAQ for a non-existent site Travellingcari (talk) 15:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't disagreeing. If it's already merged then all that's left is to Redirect. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. In previous merges I'd seen the content of Article A go to a new section in Article B and thought that was always the case, causing redundancy in this case. Travellingcari (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete as copyvio, redirect set per User:Paularblaster. Pegasus «C¦T» 22:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sisters of Saint Joseph of Chambery[edit]

Non notable. Hardly any information given. The sites are weak and simple searches yield nothing notable. Metal Head (talk) 05:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is it possible to merge all of the "Sisters of Saint Joseph of X" articles together? That would be preferable to deletion. Bearian (talk) 13:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question How many are there? Metal Head (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, but I know of the Sisters of Saint Joseph of Carondolet. Bearian (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That one is in Sisters of St. Joseph. There are also Sisters of Saint Joseph of Medaille, Sisters of Saint Joseph of Orange and Congregation of the Sisters of St. Joseph of Bourg. Sisters of St Joseph of the Sacred Heart and Sisters of St. Joseph of Peace appear to be not directly related in the same way. --Bduke (talk) 03:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lots of room for improvement. Benkenobi18 (talk) 07:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as plagiarism. If not for that it would be an editing issue. Just about any international religious order can easily meet policy requirements, so notability should not be in doubt. There should be no objection to re-creation as a properly sourced article free of copyright violations. This order is already dealt with in brief at Sisters of St. Joseph#United States Sisters of Saint Joseph of Chambery: perhaps a redirect to that would be in order until a policy-compliant article is written? --Paularblaster (talk) 00:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures Of Sable Georgia: The Ultimate Plan.[edit]

Proposed deletion contested by article creator. This article is about an admittedly unpublished novel, and the article was apparently created by the author of the novel. No independent sources are provided and it is unlikely that any exist. A Google search finds no hits outside Wikipedia. The novel does not meet any criteria for notability at WP:BK and so I recommend it be deleted. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete of course. Come back when it's been published and made the bestseller list. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:N. Maralia (talk) 05:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No assertion of notability and by the article's own assertion it's something made up in school one day that they havn't even started writing yet. Edward321 (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowy delete, of course, unpublished, non-notable. But I'd love to read The Adventures Of Sable Georgia: The Pink Sword. :) Corvus cornix_talk 22:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HP Photosmart M537[edit]

I believe that this is an non notable product. Marlith (Talk) 03:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect into List of Hewlett-Packard products. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into HP Photosmart. Article is not correctly tagged. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Note: I have restored the previous AfD that was overwritten by this one, and renamed this one. No further cleanup of the overwrite is necessary. JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alt.usenet.kooks[edit]

AfDs for this article:

There are a number of problems with this article. It has existed since May 2005 and still does not have a single reliable third-party source. It's been tagged as needing additional citations for nearly one full year.

I did a couple of searches to see if I could find any material to improve the article. However, results were not promising. Google Books found only one relevant work, plus one or two passing mentions and one book whose content is marked as restricted. A regular Google search shows lots of hits, but I didn't see a single one that I would consider to meet Wikipedia sourcing standards. Google Scholar has one single mention that simply says it was one of the most popular Usenet groups (a second hit is from a 1955 article and obviously an inaccurate match). JSTOR does not have any matches. I don't think there is enough material here or anywhere else to meet Wikipedia standards for verifiability while avoiding original research.

There's another major problem with the article as it now stands, namely WP:BLP. The article repeats mentions of the "awards" various individuals have won. Only primary sources are cited for these award assertions; a few "winners" are mentioned in the book I cited above, but, by and large, they aren't the same ones currently listed on the page. The page as it stands basically repeats non-notable Usenet smears against living people. *** Crotalus *** 03:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, with particular emphasis on the WP:BLP concerns involved with identifying people as "kooks" based on relatively obscure Usenet-based polls. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for same reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.61.220.146 (talk) 05:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Notable Usenet personalities, as discussing certain of them was the primary purpose of the newsgroup. --Dhartung | Talk 10:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like it's had a loooong time to get some decent sourcing, and if it hasn't happened in an entire year of being tagged there's little reason to believe it will ever happen. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ain't gonna get any better, it seems —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemike (talk • contribs) 17:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

1) This appears to be the THIRD nomination, not the second: User:Crotalus horridus, according to the edit history, overwrote the existing 2nd nomination page.[37]

2) If deletion is the result, I'd like to request that the page be moved to my userpage so I can take a crack at it. I don't really have time right now -- hell, I really shouldn't even be typing THIS -- but hopefully I can do something soon. --Calton | Talk 01:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here's a better view of the second AfD, in October 2006 (the first was in December 2005). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I nominated the article using Twinkle, which apparently didn't properly sort it. I will try to manually fix this when the nomination is over (I don't want to be renaming and moving these pages while they're still being edited.) As to Calton's comment, I have no objection to keeping it in userspace, with one caveat: the names of "award winners" must be removed as a WP:BLP violation. I have substantial doubt that he will be able to improve it with reliable sources, though, as per the statements in my nomination. I looked; the sources just don't exist. *** Crotalus *** 18:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge and redirect to track bicycle. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tarck bike[edit]

At best a neologism. Gets 25 google hits only, many of which are for the mis-spelling of track, which seems nothing less than incredible for a concept supposedly "formed as a collaboration between ... members of national and regional cycling-related internet forums." As such, not notable. Tagishsimon (talk) 03:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Track bicycle. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I left a message at WikiProject Cycling to encourage discussion. Royalbroil 13:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Fixed-gear bicycle, where you'll find some info about this phenomenon. Responding to Wikiproject Cycling comment above. There is a subculture that talks about 'riding track' on bikes like this that will never see a velodrome; it forms the basis of most of the humour on BikeSnobNYC (he's reasonably well known in this niche; eg interviewed in the New York Observer and December's Bicycling Magazine[38]). If 'Tarck' wasn't WP:MADEUP he'd have used it as a butt of his jokes by now, and he hasn't. --Bazzargh (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirect to San Pablo City, and all relevant information can be merged. MessedRocker (talk) (write these articles) 02:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Santo Angel (Ilog)[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Canley (talk) 04:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep geography based subjects should have inherent notability. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That means everything on earth is notable? LOL. --Howard the Duck 05:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not necessarily. There comes a point when some geographical unit is too small or too trivial that it doesn't deserve its own article and should instead be aggregated elsewhere. A blanket statement like "X's have inherent notability" is not a good argument in itself. You have to back it up with more substantial arguments. --seav (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Geography:"Geological features named on maps, such as Willow Creek Pass (Montana), are verifiable and so acceptable".--brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Our house is seen on our municipal map. If you'd want to verify, visit the municipal engineer. So is it OK for Wikipedia? --Howard the Duck 02:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please note that Common Outcomes is not a guideline much less policy. It just documents what's been the result of many AfD and is not policy. So appealing to it is also not a convincing argument in itself. So it would be best if you argue about saving this article on the subject's merits. I have plainly stated my reasons being that there can be no reliable sources about these barangays from which to source a full article about it. Note that I haven't said that there shouldn't be any mention about these barangays in Wikipedia, just that barangays don't deserve individual articles. I should know, I'm Filipino. --seav (talk) 09:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Almost all barangays in the Philippines are not notable enough in themselves to merit individual articles in Wikipedia and there is a problem of getting enough reliable sources to create a full-fledged article. A simple Google search does not turn up any non-trivial sources that refer to this barangay. --seav (talk) 06:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Seav and Howard--Lenticel ^(talk) 09:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect instead to the San Pablo City article (under the barangays section). Deleting it would have removed information that could have been valuable to the locals living in that certain area. besides, I'm a native of San pablo City [not barangay Santo Angel (Ilog)] and other unnotable articles (with good content) should be transfered instead to the articles of the town, where the barangay is located. Example, you're planning to delete Barangay 41 in G City (example only). Since the barangay is possibly well known, then the text regarding that barangay will be moved to the G City article. And if it is too big, well create it on your own userpages. Problem solved. -iaNLOPEZ1115 TaLKBaCK Vandalize it UBX 09:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I dunno what info from this article maybe merged to San Pablo City, perhaps the info on Lake Calibato's location and the watershed but everything else can be discarded. If you want, create a table on the barangay section with the residing brgy. captain, area, population and fiesta. --Howard the Duck 09:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to "San Pablo City". Only notable data are the following: population census as of May 2000 (click "Region IV-Southern Tagalog" then "Laguna") and a resort located in the barangay that was mentioned in Yahoo! Travel. Starczamora (talk) 04:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, political units in all countries should have articles. --Oldak Quill 02:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus MessedRocker (talk) (write these articles) 02:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that that doesn't preclude a merge, which is probably necessary. MessedRocker (talk) (write these articles) 03:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sapangbato[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Canley (talk) 04:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~towns~~ geography based subjects should have inherent notability. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Barangays are NOT towns. They're a part of a town. Also, see the latest barangay-related AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pandayan. Consensus a week ago was to delete. --Howard the Duck 05:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That means everything on earth is notable? LOL. --Howard the Duck 05:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not necessarily. There comes a point when some geographical unit is too small or too trivial that it doesn't deserve its own article and should instead be aggregated elsewhere. A blanket statement like "X's have inherent notability" is not a good argument in itself. You have to back it up with more substantial arguments. --seav (talk) 01:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Geography:"Geological features named on maps, such as Willow Creek Pass (Montana), are verifiable and so acceptable".--brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Barangays aren't just purely geographical areas. They are political units, made up of people. Willow Creek Pass (Montana) is a landform, barangays, not really. --Howard the Duck 02:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - then a fortiori!--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Show me the "policy" where all political units are notable. --Howard the Duck 02:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It's a geographic area and a political unit.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Are all political units notable? Or the better question is, are all political units elsewhere on earth comparable to each other? (PS: All political units are geographical areas, too.) --Howard the Duck 03:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I can't answer that, but I do know that Sapangbato is more notable then Willow Creek Pass (Montana). (btw, political units aren't necessarily geographic areas).--brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        How did you assume that? --Howard the Duck 03:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Google search: Willow Creek 1,710 vs. Sapangbato 1,440. --Howard the Duck 03:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Of course. English language sources are easier to find for an American geographic area. I'm actually shocked, I though that there would be a greater difference. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You apparently don't know that it's easier to find English-language sources about Philippine articles than Tagalog (and other Philippine languages) ones. In fact, there is not a single Tagalog language broadsheet at least on Metro Manila so it's logical to find lots more English language sources for Philippine-related topics. --Howard the Duck 03:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Even if that's true, there's far more Philippine language sources for Sapangbato then Philippine language sources for Willow Creek Pass (Montana).--brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        First page of the Google search for Sapangbato: Friendster, general population count, a social networking website, Wikimapia, photos, a travel website, web forums, and trivial coverage. Not really reliable sources to create an article... --Howard the Duck 05:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Exactly, that's my point, English language sources are hard to come by. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        So why create articles (or even have a long discussion to keep) for an article which can't have sources (which are essentially true for almost all barangays? --Howard the Duck 05:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        If you really insist on keep despite unnotability and even scarcity of reliable sources, I suggest to copy these barangay articles to WikiPilipinas. --Howard the Duck 05:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Hence back to my original argment: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Geography. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:RS trumps common outcomes. --Howard the Duck 05:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Wikipedia:Consensus trumps WP:RS. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Consensus can change. And no reason to use other deletion discussions which are remotely related to the barangay concept. --Howard the Duck 05:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You haven't shown that it changed. A couple of afd's with your two other cronies that noone else noticed isn't considered change. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 08:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Wait a minute, barangays are not geological features. --Howard the Duck 05:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Wait a second, but they are (they are also political units).--brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        So answer my question above, are all political units notable? --Howard the Duck 05:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No not all political units are notable, but this geographic entity, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Geography, is. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 08:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Wait a second, WP:N trumps Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes (which is not really consensus, some AFDs often end up with "no consensus"). If you can prove Sapangbato in particular and barangays in general "has/have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" then it could have it's own article. --Howard the Duck 06:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Substantial geographic entities are notable and that is the concensus.
- Reindent: Wait a millisecond... you're basically saying we should apply standards done to other articles. I have yet to see an argument from you that this article should be kept on its own merits. --Howard the Duck 06:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Substabtial geography based subjects that are found on all maps are inherently notable, and that is the concensus.See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Geography. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 08:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please note that Common Outcomes is not a guideline much less policy. It just documents what's been the result of many AfD and is not policy. So appealing to it is also not a convincing argument in itself. So it would be best if you argue about saving this article on the subject's merits. I have plainly stated my reasons being that there can be no reliable sources about these barangays from which to source a full article about it. Note that I haven't said that there shouldn't be any mention about these barangays in Wikipedia, just that barangays don't deserve individual articles. I should know, I'm Filipino. --seav (talk) 09:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Do you have any arguments aside from WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS? How about arguments pertaining to this barangay per se? What makes this barangay notable? --Howard the Duck 09:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment parts of this article also appear to be copyvios. Some parts of the information on "Chef Henry Pacheco Bonifacio" appear to be copied from here and here and probably other places, with some other stuff copied and then modified slightly, for example. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 05:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Taken care of. problematic potential copyvios were removed. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, then edit and move to "Barangay Sapangbato, Angeles City". Although the population census of Pampanga does not include Angeles City (because Angeles City was counted as a single unit, without a breakdown of barangays as shown here, just click "Region III - Central Luzon"), the barangay possesses some level of notability such as:
being the location of Fort Stotsenburg, which eventually became Clark Air Base,
the birthplace of Allan Pineda Lindo (more popularly known as Apl d'Ap of the Black Eyed Peas),
a tourist destination that is being promoted by Department of Tourism's Pampanga Department,
the location of an award-winning digital film "Manoro",
a battle ground used by the US Army 37th Division against the Japanese Army in WWII,
part of Abacan river system, which was affected by lahar after the Mount Pinatubo eruption, and possibly many others. Starczamora (talk) 05:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't the notability of this place passed on to Angeles City? For example, Apl.de.ap acknowledges his hometown as Angeles City. And several other places may have been devastated by Mount Pinatubo, too. --Howard the Duck 05:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The two articles you have mentioned specifically mentioned "Sapangbato", and not just "Angeles City" in general. And, if you could remember, Apl.de.ap used "Sapangbato" as part of his lyrics for Bebot (Galing sa bayan ng Sapangbato/ Nagpunta ng L.A. at nagtrabaho). Starczamora (talk) 13:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - But you can make a case for every barangay that has been mentioned in songs, right? And Apl should have forgotten his local geography since "bayan" refers to the municipality/city.
    - Also, the barangay encompassing the beach on Leyte in which MacArthur landed won't have an article, either. That's more important than this (perhaps a lot of barangays had US-Japan skirmishes on WWII, they were all over the place. --Howard the Duck 13:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - That can be useful information. Besides, I'm smelling that some Filipino Wikipedians are only intent on keeping rich barangays like Bel-Air Village and Dasmariñas Village and consider barangays outside of Metro Manila as meaningless and unnotable. I mean, the data are already glaring and you still deny the barangay an article of its own? Systemic bias? Starczamora (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm formulating for a workaround on those "rich" barangays... I PRODded them too, you know. --Howard the Duck 02:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        But still, we cannot deny that some barangays are notable. I mean, at first I thought bot-creating 40,000 barangay articles would be crazy, but we can select which barangay article to write about--especially with enough level of notability that is exemplified in this subject. For instance, Barangay Forbes Park, Makati City has been referred by the local media as the richest barangay in the country, Barangay Parola Compound, Manila is the city's largest (and among the poorest), Barangay Dau, Mabalacat, Pampanga is the town's main business hub (to the point everybody thought it is a separate town), or Carmen, Rosales, Pangasinan which is a cluster of barangays named after actress Carmen Rosales. Starczamora (talk) 03:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually, the workaround I'll be doing on some barangays isn't on the premise that they're notable because they are barangays but because they are neighborhoods. As stated in WT:PINOY, these "rich" barangays are not always coternimous with the neighborhoods they're famous for. --Howard the Duck 03:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, political units in all countries should have articles. --Oldak Quill 02:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Max Media Dock Homebrew Compatibility List[edit]

(No-)Contested prod. This is a spin-off of an apparently not notable homebrew device. If the main article is not notable, why should its companion compatibility list be any more notable? Probably should have been speedied when the main article was deleted. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete howto, linkfarm, not notable - take your pick. Maralia (talk) 05:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete stuff that's more suitable for a fan reference site. Corpx (talk) 09:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#LINK and WP:NOT#HOWTO Doc Strange (talk) 15:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep (closed by non-admin). RMHED (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adult FriendFinder[edit]

Stay with me on this one, the reason I nominated this is a bit different then most. For one, this article does read like an advertisement, as it has since it was tagged. It also fails WP:ORG. Also, look at its talk page, this article was a scam. I believe this article is not salvageable. The source that describes the male to female ratio does not make the article notable either. I say delete this article. Undeath (talk) 03:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lots of coverage by media Corpx (talk) 09:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite from sources. Not sure if there's a reliable source that it's the biggest dating site, but it certainly claims to be and has received commensurate coverage in media. The solution to bad information is to remove or source it. --Dhartung | Talk 10:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:V and WP:N, although I think it's unfortunate that we have to have an article on this and cannot have one on a popular social networking website hi5.ro with over 100K users...--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hey, you voted delete on that one! It seems that could be a language/sourcing issue, though. --Dhartung | Talk 23:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while the current article has multiple problems and a notable lack of editors willing to improve it, the subject is, for better or worse, notable. The company is real and has attracted media coverage, so a verifiable article could be produced. I'd suggest reducing what we have to a stub and making sure that the only properly sourced material is added back. Gwernol 12:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know how it is. You put up a page, and lots of people see it and express interest, but you can never get them to follow through. Um, what were we talking about again? --Dhartung | Talk 23:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable; I've heard about it many times and Google reveals over a million results. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 03:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Google turns up lots, but to judge from the first 20-odd hits nothing reliable: almost none are independent of the subject, even those in newspapers, reliable at first sight, are just a press release from Penthouse. The odd one or two are blogs. --Paularblaster (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Try using Google News Archive instead of just Google. You also have to vary the orthography a bit on this one. --Dhartung | Talk 05:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable; and judging by simple observation, notably open to criticism.

Comment I am considering reverting this page, as it has a long history of being mysteriously and consistently edited in order to minimise or remove criticisms, however justified their inclusion. Now I see a rather poor version of the article listed for deletion. Is someone gaming the system? Centrepull (talk) 15:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Neıl ☎ 14:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tila Tequila debut album[edit]

This page was created a whole year ago, but it's always lacked sources for notability. Nguyen has been saying that she planned to release her debut album since 2004. However, she never made any official announcements about it, nor did any news outlets. So this is a form of crystal balling. Lady Galaxy 02:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't seem that there are any sources about this yet un-named album; therefore the page is a crystal ball. Given the long delay in the album, I'm surprised Tila Tequila isn't on Curb Records... Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She did get offered a few record deals. But, she turned them down. She wants to be "independent". Lady Galaxy 16:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Her first single was well-documented as a disaster when it came out. I doubt that the album's coming out now that's she's still focusing on having a a shot at love for the second time. Nate • (chatter) 03:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC and WP:CRYSTAL. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep, nom withdrawn (non-admin closure). brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amélie Louise Rives[edit]

<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: :Amélie Louise Rives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) Delete article in no way asserts notability for this non notable person. per WP:N Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 02:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Withdrawn, sorry didn't know it was hidden oO -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 06:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some text was hidden in the article due to a formatting error. I added some references. I think the article demonstrates notability now. See also http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Am%C3%A9lie+Rives%22 --Eastmain (talk) 02:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 02:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I question the inclusion of the full poem - perhaps that could be transwikied, but I think she's notable. matt91486 (talk) 05:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy deleted by User:Jmlk17 under WP:CSD#A1 -- pb30<talk> 03:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kaesha[edit]

WAY to short, just one sentence saying that Kaesha is a female name that is not used very often. Unencyclopedic. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 01:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - appears to border on a vanity post --Mhking (talk) 01:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A1,contains almost no content/context, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Glebovna of Volkovysk[edit]

Unnotable person and possible/probably hoax considering its creator was a person doing rapid vandalism earlier today before being indef blocked. Googled to try to verify any correctness in the information, but found only 9 results with conflicting information and none providing stand alone notability. Sent to speedy but that was declined. Collectonian (talk) 01:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge As it stands now, the claim to fame is being married to somebody famous. I think a merge + redirect to the husband's page should be sufficient. Corpx (talk) 09:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Though there's one thing of note - There are no sources for the one piece of new information in this article that is not included in the Roman Danylovich article - that Danylovich may have been having an affair with her while married to his first wife. BWH76 (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep (closed by non-admin). RMHED (talk) 21:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Channelization (roads)[edit]

Per WP:NEO UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 01:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article because there is a potential to greatly expand the article using the sources which I cited, but by someone else besides me because I am not a traffic engineer. This is a similar situation to another article I created, where I also created a seed sentence with minimal content intended for expansion (First version). I specifically listed a stub line on the bottom of the Channelization (roads) article in order to attract other editors to it to expand it. Mapsax (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Self-reply I just noticed WP:NEO; "channelization" is not a neologism, as illustrated in the official sources at the bottom of the article. Mapsax (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A wretched term, to be sure, but it's not a neologism. The word has existed for a half-century. Look at the article's external links and check out the ghits. Majoreditor (talk) 02:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Majoreditor. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - really needs more sources addressing the concept, but I think it's fine for this to stay, not a neologism.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and source - Yeah, I've heard the term too. Just needs appropriate sourcing. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 17:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Google searching with abbreviations of various state DOTs brings back a generous amount. Examples which use the term somewhere on the page:
- http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environMent/flex/ch08.htm
- http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/rpt/tcstoll/toc.htm
- http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/US395/Wild+RoseRd/
- http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/hqdiv/p-r-div/maps/2004rfc/
- http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/TRAFFIC/TEOS_Publications/PDF/Traffic_Manual.pdf (~1 MB)
- http://www.dot.state.oh.us/dist2/publicmeetings/US20A/
- http://www.michigan.gov/documents/MDOT_US-41_M28_chapter3_108598_7.pdf (~1 MB)
- http://www.katsmpo.org/06-08_TIP_Projects_Amended_Feb_06.pdf
- http://www.tippecanoe.in.gov/egov/docs/1110834827_171997.pdf (~1 MB but only 1 page)
- Sufficient? :) Mapsax (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Another self-echo Now that there are multiple sources, am I supposed to add some to the article to offset the single source that's there, or is just giving examples here enough? Wikipedia:Verifiability, cited above, seems to convey that the latter is acceptable, but I've also seen the "page only uses one source" template. If the former, I'd like to ask for assistance, especially since the result appears so far to be keep. Mapsax (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus for deletion, default to keep. Sandstein (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carbomb (beer cocktail)[edit]

Unreferenced, non notable "cocktail". Wikipedia is not a recipe book. John (talk) 01:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insignificant media coverage Addhoc (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the link provided above shows a decent (can be considered significant) amount of coverage. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some sourcing/significant coverage is found. Corpx (talk) 09:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per brewcrewer - whilst the sources are not cited in the article yet, they should be, to establish the notability that obviously exists. Passes WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Which sources would those be? --John (talk) 15:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, this for example.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would not regard that as satisfying WP:RS or WP:V. Of course, YMMV. --John (talk) 02:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - How is it that the above page which represents an excerpt from a major American City Newspaper not be a reliable source? Earthdirt (talk) 01:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the "sources" look like blogs and the like,and fail WP:RS. The drink itself has no sourced notability. Heck, I could find you more printed sources than that about the Spayed Gerbil, but I'm not gonna assert ITS notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's not a standard Google search, it's Google News, and in my opinion almost everything in Google News is a reliable source, unlike Google search, if I'm not mistaken...--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article needs sources but the subject is valid. There are pages on other drinks so why not this one? Georgiamonet (talk) 04:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.--John (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete mmm... It's a non notable cocktail. Or merge to Beer cocktail? OAS ^{talk to me} 21:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
or merge with boilermaker Beach drifter (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment a boilermaker (cocktail) is not really a cocktail it is a "beer and a shot", which is nothing like an Irish Car Bomb, which is much more like a "cement mixer" than anything else. Earthdirt (talk) 01:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm confused, how is a shot of irish whiskey dropped into a Guinness not a "beer and a shot"? Compare to cement mixer, which is one shot.Beach drifter (talk) 13:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename This drink is better known (at least in the US) as the "Irish Car Bomb" a google search for this provides many reliable recipie and bartending sites which site this noteworthy cocktail. Though this article currently lacks sources they could easily be added to make this a decent short article on a well known cocktail, thus my rational for keep is per WP:HEY in addition to the fact that it is plenty noteworthy. Earthdirt (talk) 01:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum and change to Strong Keep here is a google news search which provides half a dozen major American/British newspapers mentioning the "Irish Car Bomb" on the first page a lone. I think this puts it beyond question. Earthdirt (talk) 01:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is about centralizing all knowledge, stupid or not - I came here wondering what the hell was in a carbomb, and was dismayed to find the article marked for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrontius (talk • contribs) 20:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Auspiex Online[edit]

Not a notable game. Lacks sources for notability. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 01:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, W:NOT#OR and WP:NN. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:N and on the whole is just TL;DR, looks like a possible copyvio.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN - Google reveals only 9 results. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 03:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There appears to be no coverage of this game in reliable secondary sources. JavaTenor (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grange Road[edit]

No apparent notability on its on - merge MIGHT be in order, but I submit that a AfD is in order. Wisdom89 (talk) 01:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete certainly seems nn to me--no assertion of WP:N. JJL (talk) 02:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and WP:NOR#OR. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a trave; guide. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Do the people who write these articles not understand that providing no context to the reader is a surefire way of making it an attractive target for deletion? Aside from that, it fails multiple policies such as WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NOT, and so on.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be an article about buses - doesnt say what Grange Road is or where in the world, but it still does not meet the guidelines as noted above. MilborneOne (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be NN; Google reveals nothing compelling. Violates WP:N. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 03:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN list. Paste (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to[edit]

Delete a collection of articles beginning with "Welcome to"... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete nonsense collection that violates WP:NOT --Mhking (talk) 01:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unrelated material. JJL (talk) 02:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but not speedy. This is a list of articles, it is easily understood, so it is not nonsense. It serves no useful purpose, but not nonsense. Delete as indiscriminate list. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Send immediately to WP:BJAODN Do not pass go. Do not collect $200. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 05:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Deletion WP:NONSENSE. Immature content. -Ravichandar 06:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jerry, who seems to understand that it's not actually nonsense or 'immature content'.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not nonsense but total bollocks. It is readable, but serves no real purpose. Violates WP:NOT. Doc Strange (talk) 15:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to AFD Delete. If all you can remember about what you're looking for is "welcome to..", you're knackered anyway. Someone another 20:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nonsense. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 03:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Southeast Leatherfest[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Last time we AFD'd this article, we had no consensus, but still - same issues: I still fail to see notability here, still no reliable sources, and the page is a mess to begin with. ViperSnake151 14:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. BDSM cultures purposefully are cautious about attracting media attention outside of their universes and are notoriously underground with websites replacing many of the local gay newspapers that used to cover events of this nature. Events such as Folsom Street Fair ar becoming more mainstream just as pornography and bondage cultures are so more mainstream sources will soon be available if not already. Article should be improved but needing clarity and sourcing is no reason for deletion. Benjiboi 20:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the sourcing problems should betaken into account. it is clearly real,and clearly a major event in its community.DGG (talk) 05:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — madman bum and angel 16:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – If it needs more references, let's find some. As Benjiboi notes, that may be difficult, but we can do the best we can. Deletion is not a solution here for the same reasons it wasn't before. — madman bum and angel 16:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

krizaI did alot of the editting to this page and I am still new to the Wiki-world so doing sourcing for this is still a little bit of a mystery. I do know that SELF has been referenced in several larger papers and most of the Gay Press has mentioned the event in the past. if ViperSnake151 has a model of a clean site I will model it off of that. —Preceding comment was added at 23:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. If and when the movies is released and some coverage actually exists, the page can always be recreated then. Neıl ☎ 14:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Torment (2008 film)[edit]

No notability asserted. (Vanity alert: main contributor is a single-purpose account run by an actor who appears in the film.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Contrary to one assertion in the article, Rottentomatoes.com has not reviewed Torment. There's one post about it in their forums... from 2002. And it looks like it's for a different movie, as none of the character names it mentions match up. There is an IMDB page, but that doesn't count as a source - and beyond that, there are no sources. Zetawoof_(ζ) 04:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MOVIE. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)o[reply]
DO NOT DELETE There is a review on rottentomatoes.com. I've added the link.

There is enough information provided in the links column to establish it as a real film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Collegebound8605 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of the film is not sufficient evidence for an entry. You may want to look over the notability criteria for films. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a vanity project. It is a low-budget horror film with horror scream queen Suzi Lorraine being released my a major distributor of horror films. There are articles, websites, and amazon links towards the film. I think its nitpicking b/c I am the only contributor to the site. Once the film is released, it will have major coverage on horror film websites. It has also been listed on the fangoria website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.121.158 (talk) 05:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of these things is not fait accompli notability. Once again, I implore you to read the notability criteria. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

so what if it stays up until it is released so that reviews can be added to the site? i mean its credible but all i seem to get is backlash from you all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.121.158 (talk) 02:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An UNRELEASED B-movie starring nobody well-known? Not even close. --Calton | Talk 15:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC

Not well known in mainstream cinema but Suzi Lorraine is a major horror queen here are her roles:

Sea of Dust (2008) (post-production) .... Black Forest Woman
Torment (2008) (V) .... Lauren
Sexual Confessions (2007) (V) (as Kelli Summers)
"As the World Turns" .... Waitress (2 episodes, 2007)

   - Episode #1.13146 (2007) TV episode .... Waitress
   - Episode #1.13145 (2007) TV episode .... Waitress

Holocaust Holocaust (2007) .... Sandy
Methodic (2007) .... Lisa Matthews
Rise of the Ghosts (2007) .... Carol
Recon 2022: The Mezzo Incident (2007) .... Beverley Jones
Knock Knock (2007) .... Diane Lee
Music and Lyrics (2007) (uncredited) .... Nurse
Last Rites of the Dead (2006) .... "Look Alive" Zombie
"Parco P.I." .... Model (1 episode, 2006)

   - Just Another Pretty Face (2006) TV episode .... Model

Death from Beyond (2006) (V) .... Palace Guard #2
She-Demons of the Black Sun (2006) .... Belial
Purple Glow (2005) .... Marybeth Cavanaugh
Descend Into Darkness 2 (2005) (V) .... Angela Harrison/Michelle
Chainsaw Sally (2004) .... Miss Busybee
Around Midnight (2004) (V) .... Hostess
Satan's Schoolgirls (2004) (V) .... Sister Helen
Sins of the Father (2004) (as Suzi Leigh) .... Morgan Reynolds
Busty Cops (2004) (V) (as Kelli Summers)
Acrimony (2004) .... Tara
The Night They Returned (2004) (V) .... Tawny Taggart
Skits-O-Phrenia (2004) (V)
Spiderbabe (2003) (V) (as Kelli Summers) .... Sally
The Tenement (2003) (as Suzi Leigh) .... Morgan Reynolds / Susan
The Lord of the G-Strings: The Femaleship of the String (2003) (V) (as Kelli Summers) .... Drusilla

... aka Lord of the Strings (USA: R-rated version)

That 70's Girl (2003) (V) (as Kelli Summers) .... Jennifer
Cold Blonded Murders (2003) .... Isha
Satan's School for Lust (2002) (V) (as Kelli Summers) .... Linda - Investigative Reporter

... aka Misty Mundae: School for Lust (UK) ... aka Satan's School for Sluts (USA)

B-Movie: The Shooting of 'Farmhouse Massacre' (2002) (V) (as Suzi Shareaux) .... Suzi

... aka B-Movie (USA: short title)

Vampire Queen (2002) (V) (as Kelli Summers) .... Female Escort #2
The Erotic Time Machine (2002) (V) (as Kelli Summers) .... Miss Manners
Roxanna (2002) (V) (as Kelli Summers) .... Dr. Sarah Lawrence
We're Coming to Help (2002) (V) .... Newscaster
Dirtbags (2002) (V) .... Spirit of Womankind
Revenge of the Necktie Strangler (2002) (V) (as Suzi Leigh)
Abducted! (2002) (V) (as Suzi Leigh) .... Dawn Pierce
Serial Killer (2002) (V) (as Suzi Leigh) .... Girl in Photos

The director is also a cult horror film director who wears many hats on his productions:

Composer:

   * 2000s
   * 1990s
  1. Torment (2008) (V)
  2. Wolfika (2006) (V)
  3. Malefic (2003) (V)
  4. Abomination: The Evilmaker II (2003) (V)
     ... aka Abomination (USA)
  5. Dead Clowns (2003)
  6. Psycho Santa (2003) (V)
  7. Cremains (2001) (V)
  8. Gut-Pile (1997)

Director:

  1. Torment (2008) (V)
  2. Southern Gothic (2005)
  3. Malefic (2003) (V)
  4. Cadaver Bay (2003) (V)
     ... aka Hellbound: Book of the Dead (USA)
  5. Dead Clowns (2003)
  6. Cremains (2001) (V)

Writer:

  1. Torment (2008) (V) (writer)
  2. Southern Gothic (2005) (writer)
  3. Malefic (2003) (V) (writer)
  4. Cadaver Bay (2003) (V) (writer)
     ... aka Hellbound: Book of the Dead (USA)
  5. Dead Clowns (2003) (writer)
  6. Cremains (2001) (V) (writer)

Actor:

  1. Diary of Nightmares (2006) (V) .... Brendon
  2. Wolfika (2006) (V) .... Coroner
  3. Malefic (2003) (V) .... Elliot Spudic
  4. Psycho Santa (2003) (V) .... Detective

Editor:

  1. Torment (2008) (V)
  2. Diary of Nightmares (2006) (V)
  3. Wolfika (2006) (V)

Cinematographer:

  1. Wolfika (2006) (V)

Casting Director:

  1. Wolfika (2006) (V)

Music Department:

  1. Killers by Nature (2005) (V) (composer: additional music)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.121.158 (talk) 04:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unveiled (film)[edit]

Fails WP:NFF, not going into production until March at the earliest. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom with no prejudice to recreation at a later time. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It seems like most hollywood movie, we don't really know if its already in Production...--Comet styles 15:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we do know that it isn't. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFF. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 17:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the project is not in production and not guaranteed to enter it -- too many factors can interfere, such as scripting, budgeting, and casting. If the project makes it to production, it can be recreated. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The notability guidelines for future films stipulate that a stand-alone article for a film should not be created until a project enters production. This is because many factors such as budget issues, scripting issues, and casting issues can interfere with the project. The article can be recreated when principal photography is confirmed to have begun. Steve ^{T • C} 08:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was: Speedily deleted by ArnoldReinhold upon creator's request. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 13:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glass makers and brands[edit]

Improper disambiguation page. Dictionary definition plus subject already served by category "Glass makers and brands." Dougie WII (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. KurtRaschke (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The entire article: "Glass makers and brands may refer to companies, entrepreneurs, businesspeople, inventors, trademarks, and brands in the area of glass." That's it. Makers may be "companies, entrepreneurs, businesspeople, inventors" and brands may be "trademarks and brands". It's clearly not a stub, because there's nothing else that can be usefully said... or has been usefully said. Mandsford (talk) 03:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I created the page, but after seeing your concerns I agree that it may be deleted without loosing anything. I am not all that familiar yet with the Wikipedia policy.--Afluegel (talk) 10:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Gavin Collins (talk) 11:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Super Bowl XLII[edit]

With the big game coming up this Sunday, I just feel that the vast volume of traffic on this page will probably cause grim problems with Wikipedia. The game should be a time to rejoice, savor your eyes, and keep your asses in a life rather than sit at a computer, watch the score updates, and keeping updating this page like a lifeless nerd turd. Plus this game is way more hyped than it should be, and just a few hours of football probably doesn't deserve its own article on Wikipedia. Nothing personal Roger Goodell, but space on Wikipedia is at a premium, and we must save it. --Brokendownferrarienzoferrari (talk) 01:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]