< February 12	February 14 >

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tyson Gibbs[edit]

Fails WP:BIO and appears to work for a non notable promotion that has already been removed as not notable. Could be a vanity article. Also created by a user with a history of inappropriate articles !! Justa Punk !! 23:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the IWA isn't regarded as notable, then neither should Mr. Gibbs. PC78 (talk) 00:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Creator must be an IWA fan, so likely WP:OR issues as well (see his talk page) Get Dumb 06:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For reasons stated by Justa Punk (Banarsibabu (talk) 10:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Delete Agree with PC78's comment TaintedZebra (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to quantum mysticism or some-like article. I'm just redirecting it with the history preserved; that's not an invitation to restore the content, it's an invitation to merge. --Haemo (talk) 01:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consciousness causes collapse[edit]

As per discussion at Talk:Consciousness causes collapse#Questions about the phrase "consciousness causes collapse" the editors are generally in agreement that this particular topic probably does not deserve a separate article but can be woven into a sub-section of Copenhagen Interpretation or Interpretations of quantum mechanics, for example. It was suggested that we AfD this article to get greater input from the community. I believe that deleting the article for notability and even perhaps naming concerns might be appropriate (it isn't clear that this particular phrase is used all that much as an interpretation of QM outside of Wikipedia). ScienceApologist (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with prejudice as nominator. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to quantum mysticism. At first glance, I don't see any content that would be out of place there. Serpent's Choice (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As a note, I'd oppose a merger to Copenhagen Interpretation or similar hard-science article. Per WP:FRINGE, there is enough mysticism/pseudoscience/fiction treatment of the "consciousness causes collapse" concept to warrant an article separate from the actual physics. Serpent's Choice (talk) 01:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this and quantum mysticism to an article that actually explains the actual physics such as Copenhagen Interpretation or Interpretations of quantum mechanics. WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge CCC and quantum mysticism to an article that explains the physics such as Copenhagen Interpretation or Interpretations of quantum mechanics as WAS says. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with quantum mysticism. Do NOT merge with any article that contains valid scientific content, as that would only lend credence to this claptrap. Dave Kielpinski (talk) 11:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this and quantum mysticism to an article that actually explains the actual physics such as Copenhagen Interpretation or Interpretations of quantum mechanics, per WAS. TimidGuy (talk) 12:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The AFD process is being abused to provide input on a matter of content editing which should be resolved on the article's talk page or by dispute resolution such as Third Opinion. The contention that this topic is not notable is absurd. See Google scholar for many thousands of sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A quote-bounded Google Scholar search [1] reveals few fewer hits to this title phrase. Excluding the term papers and such, what remains is one journal article, one arxiv eprint, and a UChicgo Press paper whose only mention is to reject the theory. There is not the wide currency of this term to have an article under this name. Ideally, merger would be an editorial action, but in actual practice, mergers of contentious topics are often discussed here. Its not really what AFD is for, but its sometimes better than the alternative. Serpent's Choice (talk) 14:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The exact phrasing of title of an article is unimportant when deciding whether to delete it. It's the topic that matters. The extent to which a conscious observer is required to collapse a quantum wave function has been extensively discussed by notable sources. They use various titles for the topic such as Does Consciousness Collapse the Wave Function?. There doesn't seem to be a standard form of words for this and so the current title is close enough to decide the matter of deletion. If another title seems better then the article can be moved without deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep I fully agree with Colonel Warden. Given the amount of discussion on the talk page, and the present AfD nomination, it does not seem wise to me to merge this into another article. Please discuss about the scientific (non)content on the talk page, instead of nominating for a merge. Kraaiennest (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Um, I nominated for a delete. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This topic is prevalent enough and large enough to merit its own page, however the title being used probably needs to be changed from 'Consciousness Causes Collapse' to a more universally used description of the topic. Lumping it with topics that include words like mysticism falsely sends the message that this concept was created to try to support mystic beliefs instead of created to try to better understand the phenomenon of phenomenal consciousness. Nhall0608 (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This topic should not exist as a separate subject from QM. It makes no sense outside of QM. The fact that the article has references to topics that are completely within the realm of quantum mysticism should be proof enough that that is what this topic really is. The subject of this article deals with whether or not consciousness collapses wave functions not that quantum mechanics effects consciousness. That is a totally separate subject. Dr. Morbius (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with quantum mysticism. Abecedare (talk) 23:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Strongly agree with Dr. Morbius. I would place content (there's not that much) in a talk page somwhere and let interested editors put what they want where they want, to the extent that whatever is good is deemed good at those articles. This article was a POV fork when created in 2004. It has never been either a good article nor a well moderated discussion. Three years is enough. And yes, an explicit search query clearly shows (with only five hits in the Google Scholar index), that this article does not represent an independently notable topic, outside of the Copenhagen interpretation and the QM articles that already exist. So...seems really clear then that it's a POV fork -- we just didn't know it. ;-) WNDL42 (talk) 00:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again your searching is too narrow. See Google books, which has hundreds of hits.
And the suggestion that this is a POV fork is silly. If we look at the article Interpretations of quantum mechanics, we see that there are many interpretations such as Many worlds and that each has their own main article. This case is no different. What seems to be happening here is that some POV-pushers are trying to censor an interpretation of which they disapprove. Since Eugene Wigner was a prominent scientist (Nobel prize), his interpretation deserves coverage along with the rest. Colonel Warden (talk) 02:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being a voice of reason Colonel Warden. Nhall0608 (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gents, the difference between an "explicit" query and the ones you keep citing (which yield nonsense) seems lost on you. Try again, comparing the erroneous non-explicit query you keep referencing, to this and this. The point is that "consciousness causes collapse" is a notable idea only in the context of either Copenhagen interpretation or Quantum mechanics. Treatments of the idea outside of the larger scientific contexts yield nonsense articles which never go anywhere, because they are POV forks and crank magnets, attracting only extreme POVs from both sides. Now, I think that consciousness in the context of quantum mechanics is important, see (for example) here, but my point is that the topic will never get a solid treatment at an article with the provocative and POV loaded title Consciousness causes collapse, because the article's very title is an assertion that is simultaneously (a) unprovable, (b) unfalsifiable. WNDL42 (talk) 23:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Folks making a case to keep this article need to explain (a) why it's been crap since it's creation in 2004, and (b) tell us what on earth is going to be different in the future to cause that to change. From what I have seen at the talk page, a better article title would be "Condescension causes collapse" (of the Wiki-function). WNDL42 (talk) 23:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(a) It probably has been crap since 2004 because no one has taken initiative to clean it up. (b) This is what we need to do to make it better: (1) Either remove or condense the New Age and mysticism non-sense that has attached itself to this interpretation and explain where the interpretation ends, and the new age non-sense begins. (2) Add references to experiments being done to try to show evidence for this interpretation. (3) State the possible ramifications if this interpratation is correct, such as, if we are someday able to pin point the point where wave functions start to collapse, we could someday better know what exactly does have consciousness, such as, what animals can collapse a wave function, at what point from conception to birth can a fetus collapse a wave function. 162.18.76.206 (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into quantum mysticism --Orange Mike | Talk 14:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of free party sound systems[edit]

Why has this been deleted, this was a valuable recourse documenting UK sound systems. There were literally thousands of people involved in setting up all these organisations and to delete this list is burying a little bit of of UK culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.101.48 (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know this was nominated before, but this is nothing but a list of unlinked sound systems. If there were articles about each and every one of these things, or even most of them, then this might be useful. But there aren't even sources for this huge list of apparently non-notable sound systems. If these systems were notable, there would be articles about them. Corvus cornix_talk 23:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE! Wikipedia is a source for information. you may have rules and regulations about what is real and what is not, but just because these groups havent had a number one hit single doesnt mean they dont exist! PLEASE DONT DELETE HISTORY! If the groups that are named are unhappy - the are quite capable of deleting there own personal entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.173.91 (talk) 15:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to enter an example of one of these systems, with photographs, and it was deleted by one User:TimVickers within a few minutes (while I was actually trying to defend it on the talk page to two admins, and another person pro the page was helping tidy it - thumbnail the photos for me etc). I did not even have time to start putting technical specs in. So it seems the ostrich wants to bury its head in the sand. And the ostriches are the over zealous wiki cops.Robin48gx (talk) 10:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced, unsourceable within policy, none of them are ever likely to qualify for entries per various policies on sourcing, verifiability and neutrality, and even if they could be, the selection criteria are arbitrary. Unsalvageable. Guy (Help!) 23:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT Delete !!! How can it be sourced if the admins delete pages describing these things within minutes of them going up ???? Catch 22 here. Robin48gx (talk) 12:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the kind of stuff you cannot get documented anywhere else. By its very nature rave is an underground culture. People are not open about these things, because, partly it is linked in with illegal sales of drugs like Ecstacy. Partly its people who want a little world of their world to NOT be of the rat race and the survailance society. You are not going to get citations and good references. Rave culture is on the ragged edge of society, but important culturally. You would not have got good references in the 1950's for the beat culture. Or in the 1960's for Bob Dylan and co before they went mainstream.

Deleteing this would make wiki look like an "old bunch of authoritarian fuddy duddies" club on the internet. What next ? Articles on how dangerous E is while totally ignoring the hard statistics on the drug ? This is what politicians do now. Will wiki be removing the sentences where Jack Kerouac is identified as an amphetamine abuser ? Denying the romantic poets took opium ?

If you delete this "free party sounds" list then Wiki might as well just talk about set theory (done and dusted by Leonhard Euler some 300 years ago) and politically correct versions of non-contraversional history. If wiki can't cope with this slightly ragged edge of society it just becomes a nice squeaky clean university club on the internet.

Maybe my concept of wiki was incorrect. Maybe thinking it was a pool of knowledge that grows and grows, and that anyone can contribute was wrong. Maybe for admin status soon you will need a recognised PhD in the subject area you police. I think wiki is becoming too zealously policed. And deleteing this is would be a good example of it.

Robin48gx (talk) 10:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete This seems like an Indiscriminate collection of otherwise non-notable collections of equipment. Q ^{T C} 11:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robin48gx (talk · contribs) is a vandal who threatened to continue to vandalize Wikipedia until they were permanently blocked. ([2]) He/she has apparently has a changed of heart. We'll have to see if he/she is really interested in working in concert with other editors, or with only throwing tantrums until they get their own way. Corvus cornix_talk 05:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- removing this page would be an act of censorship, something far worse than minor monitored 'vandalism' that I knew would be corrected within seconds IMHO. does the he/she combination mean the entity is plural ? split personality by gender ? or is english not your first language ? Robin48gx (talk) 19:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As the blocking admin in that case, I would like to say, comment on the article, not on the contributor. Robin's actions have absolutely no bearing on this discussion, as they were not in relation to this article, and he is not vandalising this discussion. - Revolving Bugbear 20:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, his actions were in direct relation to this article, as his tempter tantrum erupted because he wasn't allowed to create an article on a non-notable free party sound system and linked it to this page. And his comments here about admins removing material he created is related to that article. Corvus cornix_talk 21:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - a tempter tantrum ? more like making a point. AND not in direct relation to this article. I had a very difficult time with wiki administrators when I started an article about the SDS 930. Lots of problems with speedy deleteion and the like. And this was the a really really important event in terms of computer science. the worlds first transistorised computer. Wiki is in real danger off being over zealously policed. If I had not spent alot of time defending the SDS 930 article it would have dissappeared. Admins were wanting it deleted because they did not know what it was, and references were hard to find. By creating the article this linked in with another project in califoria where volunteers are trying to restore and save one of these computers. I still have photos of the SDS 930 in my loft and will scan them. When I do, I will send them to the restoration project. And why would you think this sound system was non-notable. you know nothing about it. I still have my specs and other research along with photos. a little glimse into part of the massive underground culture that is 'free party' or 'rave'. if wiki wants to ignore this significant section of society, then thats probably a problem with how its currently administered and edited.Robin48gx (talk) 07:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Corvus: Unless I'm missing something, SDS 930 and List of free party sound systems are not the same article. So I'm really failing to see the "direct relation" here. This is the place to discuss List of free party sound systems, not Robin. - Revolving Bugbear 21:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Havok sound system. is the article I was talking about. Corvus cornix_talk 19:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You already have the beginings of rave culture, literature irving welsh, films [[3]], a whole massive subset of contemporary music, and you want to delete evidence of the technical engine that drives this sub-culture ?????? Even in the mainstream comedy TV shows like PEEP SHOW we have in depth fictional forays into rave culture, but wiki is going to somehow put its head in the sand ???Robin48gx (talk) 11:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Q ^{T C} 11:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:EVERYTHING WP:LOSE and WP:EFFORT not only wikipedia effort. Think of the logistics of these rigs. Power generation, transport, maintenance expertise, building the things. The problems associated with powerful bass loudspeakers. you need to factor in resonance and the speed of sound in air. How many of you wiki administrator wanting deletion of this could cope with that ? these people are not just a bunch of e'd up hippies : these people are technically skilled and dedicated to a cause. [User:Robin48gx|Robin48gx]] (talk) 11:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article appears to serve mainly as an external links directory. There's no indication of plans (or even the ability) to start articles on the vast majority of these systems, so there's no navigational advantage to be gained here. If we removed all the spam, then we'd mainly have just a list of names – which I think goes against #3 of WP:DIRECTORY. --Sturm 12:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a list of references on that page. Its not just a list. Robin48gx (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I have started many other articles. When I tried to start one on a rig, it was very very quickly deleted. Therefore your ability statement is disingenuous. Robin48gx (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

there would be more info on these rigs if they were not deleted by the admins. see above. When I started to document one of these rigs it was deleted within minutes. Robin48gx (talk) 12:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're referring to this? I think, perhaps, that's an indication that editors should develop articles before sending them into the mainspace (which you appear to be doing). That said, I would, of course, be supportive of a list of such systems should there ever come a time when there are a significant number of articles on them. But that time is not now. --Sturm 12:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thats a catch 22 argument. Any articles on these systems are quickly deleted; therefore there will never be 'a significant number of articles on them' and then you say the list is not supported. btw that article was in a more advanced state than the one 'archived' for me. I feel that you do not like/understand this sub culture and are therefore destroying any reference to it here. Well WP:EVERYTHING is a principle of wiki. Just because you dont like this culture does not give you the right to destory articles on it. This type of thinking is censorship. Robin48gx (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can it be sourced if the admins delete pages describing these things within minutes of them going up ???? Catch 22 here. Robin48gx (talk) 12:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This article has been here since June of 2006. What are you talking about? Corvus cornix_talk 05:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am talking about, as you probably well know, the fact that entries on these rigs get deleted very quickly. It seems like a form of censorship. comment added by Robin48gx (talk) 19:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Traces_series#Framed.21. Replacing article content with redirect as to keep article's history intact. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Framed![edit]

Does not meet WP:BK, tagged since Nov. 2007. Seems to have been merged already into Traces_series#Framed.21. Lea (talk) 12:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Traces_series#Framed.21 - the entire contents of Framed! has already been copied to the parent article. There's no reason to keep the Framed! article. There are some google indications that Framed! won a book award and is on the reading list of some schools so technically it might satisfy WP:BK but I'd still go with a redirect. Sbowers3 (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect falls short of WP:BOOK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sallicio (talk • contribs) 04:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect fails WP:BK. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Sbowers3 with no prejudice against forking it out later if notability can actually be established within Traces_series.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above to Traces series with possibility of later recreation according to available sources. Cloudz679 (talk) 14:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Non-admin closure --Soxred93 | talk count bot 04:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xtreme Sports (Youtube)[edit]

Non-notable YouTube series. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{it seems the winds have stopped...} 22:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Antonio Lopez ^(talk) 22:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --ukexpat (talk) 23:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Soxred93 | talk count bot 23:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7/nn web content. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pinewood Acres[edit]

another of them non-notable junior schools. Montchav (talk) 13:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is some coverage, but it's all local and nothing showing any notability. As it's private, no larger entity to merge to. Travellingcari (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN school. Bearian (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Humble Neighborhoods[edit]

Delete - A repotedly Promotional single by Pink, which has no sources and is a poorly edited article. Surfer-boy94 (talk) 0:39, 02 February 2008 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Try This the album this song is from. It is a plausible search term. Bláthnaid 14:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested. Bearian (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Happy Editing, Dusti^{talk to me} 18:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moquette[edit]

Delete, no indication that this carpet brand/style/kind is notable, no sources showing significant coverage in 3rd party reliable sources. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously notable. A case of So fix it. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in its current form, or restore the redirect to Bus spotting, as I originally created Moquette. ··· rWd · Talk ··· 21:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creating this article as a redirect to bus spotting seems bizarre. Why did you do it? Anyway, the fact that moquette fabric is widely used in public transportation (presumably because it is hard-wearing) is further evidence of the topic's notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep- Certainly needs expansion; as far as fabrics are concerned it seems notable.Rigby27 (talk) 14:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - already has references to indicate some notability. Colonel Warden pointed to many other books that mention the carpet. It would be nice if someone turned it into a larger article but as a stub it has more content and more references than many stubs. Sbowers3 (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Central Florida Local Bands[edit]

Delete local bands, even from such a nice place as Central Florida, are usually not notable and a directory of these bands is of no encyclopedic value; WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, local bands should not be here. Punkmorten (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not going to fight this one, I've got aother article I'm trying to save. I don't agree that local notability is not notable enough. I didn't have time to complete the list anyways. Saksjn (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only one article linked, and it's up for AfD. I should have put this in the same Afd. -- Donald Albury 23:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swarnamalya[edit]

Delete actress article sourced to her own webpage, no indication that she has received significant coverage in reliable third party sources as required by WP:N, WP:BIO. So nn that we don't know when or where she was born or anything about her other than her claimed appearances (as bit parts, non-speaking/singing roles?) in some movies. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. She's verifiable on IMDB and she's mentioned in this article in The Hindu. Hopefully a subcontinental editor can fill in some more details. Pburka (talk) 01:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick search on Google News (all dates) brings up 90 hits of increasing frequency, in seemingly notable publications. The article desperately needs work, though. Bilby (talk) 01:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is notable in South India. The article needs to be expanded. Salih (talk) 04:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of African athletes[edit]

Created by myself some time ago, this is not maintained anymore. The reason: it is an unneeded list, nearly all athletes are bluelinked, being African is not a particularly relevant or interesting characteristic by which to bring these items together, we already have categories for this. Punkmorten (talk) 21:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Listing or categorizing people by continent is rather vague and not all that usefull. PC78 (talk) 00:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per PC78. Sbowers3 (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Reformation (album)[edit]

Delete upcoming debut album, violates both WP:N & WP:CRYSTAL Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Should definitely be deleted at least until the release date draws a bit closer and more sourced details can be provided. Tim meh ! 02:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsmdgold (talk • contribs) 21:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 22:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erratically Charged[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Erratically Charged

Non-notable Spondyo (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is sourced, and subject seems notable RogueNinja_talk 18:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources are mostly the radio stations own website, no reasonable assertion of notability Beeblbrox (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Mostly" their own website still doesnt mean it should be deleted. RogueNinja_talk 20:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment ok, fair enough, but the one link that isn't their website doesn't go to the promised review of the show, I just don't see any notability outside of this one college campus...Beeblbrox (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the subject seems notable enough for inclusion, particularly as the show was broadcast during the station's award winning year. The article is referenced, is of a sufficient length and follows the Manual of Style. It must be noted that the editor proposing this article for deletion has little or no other contributions, so his nomination must be treated with caution. Bob talk 13:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment You may have a point about this editor, but I still don't see any secondary sources to establish this show was notable.Beeblbrox (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per Bob. Paste (talk) 21:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete i could not find any reviews or other significant coverage in significant sources, almost everything that shows up is self published. --Asmodeus Samael (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks funny, but unless someone can bring a reliable source to establish notability, it doesn't belong. It's just a student radio show. AndyJones (talk) 13:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless independent reliable sources are provided. "It exists" is not a valid keep criterion. Corvus cornix_talk 21:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Master of Medieval Studies[edit]

I'm not sure on what grounds since I can't find anything specific to academic degrees. I know schools are considered notable by consensus, I cannot find anything notable about this degree as compared with any other academic degree. Note there's been some discussion that stemmed from tag removal. Travellingcari (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki seems to be too short for an article, and I dont see how it could be expanded. Transwiki it to wikitionary RogueNinja_talk 18:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looking at some of the entries in Category:Master's degrees there are some good, if brief, articles. I see no reason why this one can not be expanded in the same way. --Bduke (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No valid reason given in Nomination Statement for deletion. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment there's nothing notable about it, therefore in my opinion it fails WP:N. No coverage from independent sources about this masters program doesn't pass WP:N. There doesn't need to be a specific section of WP:N to speak to academic degrees. I understand you disagree with me on principle but there is no reason to nitpick my nominations. Travellingcari (talk) 12:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Im not picking specifically on you, I pick on everyone equally :D Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete We usually do have articles about significant academic degrees, but phrases used by only one or two programs for what are merely a combination of existing courses does not in my opinion make for notability. It's a M.A. basically, under a fancy specialised name. merge it to something if possible. DGG (talk) 00:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless a degree in a particular subject is somehow notable in a way I cannot conceive of. Blast Ulna (talk) 07:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This is a well written and interesting article. However, in order for the page to survive it needs to meet WP:N which leads that the subject should have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The article is entirely devoid of secondary sources, none have been produced in an 18 day AfD and there was unanimity amongst the AfD contributors that it should be deleted. TerriersFan (talk) 00:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brutarian[edit]

Article about an apparently non-notable publication. No evidence of notability, and only references are to its own Myspace. Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability Travellingcari (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reading this article, it seems a notable subject, but since it's been tagged for so long and still doesn't have adequate references to establish notability...Beeblbrox (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources. Addhoc (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (non-admin). Gary King (talk) 20:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Bellows[edit]

Prod removed without explanation. Non-notable character from I Dream of Jeannie. Article is just a synopsis of the character with no secondary source coverage. Fails WP:FICTION. Redfarmer (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to Hayden Rorke, whose portrayal of the character was a wonderful part of the TV series. If there was any useful content here, then I would say merge, but this is written by someone who thinks that NASA is "Nassa, in a mythical town called Cape Kennedy". Mandsford (talk) 01:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hayden Rorke. I've added a one-sentence description of his function on the show. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cleanup and redirect to Dr. Alfred Bellows. Major character in a major television show. I'm stupefied that there are red links at "Roger Healey" and "Anthony Nelson" as well! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the TV show's article; be prepared to do same for Majors Healey and Nelson as well. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTICE - it should be noted that while this discussion is going on, the original author has created two more identical articles, Dr. Alfred Bellows and Dr Alfred Bellows (both of which I have turned into redirects. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the FICTWARN template from this AFD as the ARBCOM injunction specifically says "any currently existing article" and this article was created a day after the injunction was passed. If anyone feels this is incorrect feel free to re add it to the article. Davewild (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I interpreted the term "current" to apply to "at the time of the editor's action", not to mean "at the time of the injunction being proposed (or approved)". Like if I said "To avoid being burned, you can place your hand over an extinguished candle, but as a rule you should not place your hand over any candle that is currently lit." I would mean "current" at the time you place your hand there, not at the time I make the statement. The injunction is clearly attempting to stop the deletion of television series fictional character and episode articles until some guideline is in place to govern the conduct of editors in such matters. So I am certain the template belongs here. I will add it back as you suggested, but I will not "wheel war" if somebody else disagrees with me and removes it again. JERRY ^talk _contribs 19:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (Per temporary injunction) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I previously suggested a redirect to Hayden Roarke... the article's creator has made corrections, perhaps overcompensating a bit, but is working on making the article a keeper. As PMDrive correctly states, this was not a "non-notable character"; he pretty well was on every episode, wasn't he? He was perhaps TV's most famous psychiatrist (Bob Newhart's Dr. Hartley was a psychologist), and part of the joke was that he sometimes doubted his own sanity. Sources can probably be found for the Larry King interview of Hagman, Eden and Daily in which they agreed that Roarke was the other part of the team who made the show work. Suggestions to author: (a) look for some more commentary about Roarke as Bellows (as in Google books); (b) no need to explain that NASA and Cocoa Beach, Florida, are real rather than fictional; (c) please, no articles about General Peterson or other minor characters. Mandsford (talk) 03:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Notable character from a notable sitcom. Likely Hayden Rorke's most notable role. The article can't be deleted while the injunction is in effect. --Pixelface (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Boston Red Sox all-time roster. Players for Boston Red Sox are notable by definition and no case has been made for a subsidiary, more refined, list. TerriersFan (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Boston Red Sox players[edit]

OK, I'm a Red Sox fan, but I don't understand the point of this article at all. It is simply a list of notable baseball players who have played for the Boston Red Sox, as it describes. I say just delete it, because it's redundant to Boston Red Sox all-time roster. jj137 (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no point of this, seems to be just repeated of the Boston Red Sox all time roster (per nom). - Milk's Favorite Cookie 21:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move Boston Red Sox all-time roster to List of Boston Red Sox players, delete to make way for move. There is no reason to keep the current version of List of Boston Red Sox players, but the list should be at that location - to be consistent with other lists ("List of..."). Punkmorten (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it seems like all the MLB lists use "all-time roster" in their article titles. Zagalejo^^^ 01:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 15:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hexagradior[edit]

Non-notable self published book. References are misleading, and all references are to unreliable self published sources. As far as I can the majority of this article is made up non-sense. Ridernyc (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not against deleting it but the fact is that this book exists and I have seen it being debated since mid 90s. None of it is "non-sense". If you google "hexagradior" you get over 1000 results. It is mentioned in at least one book (Ardeth - The Made Vampire) and that was published prior to "Hexagradior Bible Of Magic" where (to my knowledge) the Hexagradior text itself was first made public as one chapter of the book. So much for non-notable. One book and over thousand web pages refered to it (agreed, some of it are usernames, but it still disproves the "non-notable" theory). All before it appeared on Amazon.

"references misleading" ??? - one reference is the Wikipedia article itself LOL It references Egyptian Soul beliefs and "Ka" symbol which does look exactly like one exercise from the book. That is undeniable. Rosemary Clark in "The Sacred Magic of Ancient Egypt" has sacred gestures and magic practices from Ancient Egypt one of which is that exact one resembling the "Ka" symbol. Rosicrucian Monographs also describe same exercise. That exercise exists at least since 19th century. All facts, no "made up non-sense". When the word "hexagradior" started being associated with that exercise + the others is another matter. And that is the problem I don't have answer to.

By now all pages from 90s where name "hexagradior" was discussed are gone or updated with newer dates and I can't find any earlier references to it. As explained it probably stems from early 20th century Europe and references from that time are hard to find because people had bigger problems like two world wars to think and write about. All in all, I'd have to agree not much can be verified and on that grounds I agree that it can be removed.

Then again same "unverifiable" goes for most of stuff from the Wikipedia grimoires list. Noone knows when exactly which grimoire was made. The only difference is that they are older which gave more time to more books to reference them. I guess let's leave it to someone in 50 years time or so to make this entry again. MrMagneto (talk) 23:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First a google search returns 1300 many of which have nothing to do with the book at all. Second Every google hit about the book is to a self published book. As far as I can tell this just all made up to promote the book. If you can find reliable sources that refer to this in anyway it would be helpful. Right now it just looks like viral marketing to me. Ridernyc (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also the Ardeth The Made Vampire is another self published book the text dealing with Hexagradior can be read here. [4] Not a very convincing source. Basically at best we have a totally non-notable urban legned that someone named a non-notable book after. Either way I can see none of this passing WP:V. Ridernyc (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also a search of news groups returns 0 hits. So in the past 27 years no one mentioned this book even once, kind of strange. Ridernyc (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hmmm. There's a self-published book by this title with Amazon sales rank of #1,111,589. The references seem to consist of a website and a post in a forum. I think that the book is non-notable and that the article does not have any reliable sources. Cardamon (talk) 08:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I said. Can't be verified and I agree with deletion on that grounds. I am saying that your other arguments don't stand. Newsgroup search ??? Are you even into occult? I just searched for "Le Grand Albert" and "La clef de la magie noire". Albert returns a bunch of people named Albert all "...of which have nothing to do with the book at all..." and one saint of that name. Second book gives 0 results. "... So in the past 27 years no one mentioned ... " two books one on which has centuries of reputation in France and Channel Islands and is mentioned in a number of books, and the other book is where pentagram with goat first appeared (19th century) and still has no mentions of it in "past 27 years" in news groups. "Key of solomon" (present since 1500s) gets 1 result and even that is for "Songs in the Key of Solomon" and that has nothing to do with the grimoire. "...So in the past 27 years no one mentioned..." The Key of Solomon. One of most famous, if not the most famous of all grimoires? Not "...even once, kind of strange...." Amazon sales rank? I look at http://www.amazon.com/Aradia-Gospel-Witches-Charles-Leland/dp/1585092428/ref=pd_bbs_sr_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1202978771&sr=8-5 (Aradia) and I see sales rank #1,541,394 (lower than what Cardamon found) Is that grounds for removing Aradia now? Of all arguments, only the one about verifiability stands. No firm references can be found. We agree on deletion on the grounds of "no firm references", just not on other arguments around it, so let's just delete the damn book because we can go on like this for days. MrMagneto (talk) 09:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You keep talking about famous this is yet there is no record of it anywhere, nothing not one mention other than the self published book. Ridernyc (talk) 09:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that Amazon sales rank is not a good way of determining the notability of a book. A better method is to check whether the book has been the subject of multiple non-trivial mentions (for example, book reviews) in published sources independent of the book itself. As far as I can tell, this book hasn't. Cardamon (talk) 09:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I said Key of Solomon is famous. Not Hexagradior. We all agree that the references are not firm enough to make it "famous". What I am saying is that the problem with Hexagradior is lack of references which makes anything anyone writes about it unverifiable. I am simply not agreeing that it is "non-sense" and that "non-notable" is measured by Amazon rank, that's all. MrMagneto (talk) 16:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Cardamon. Self-published books are virtually always non-notable. Edward321 (talk) 00:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Wilkes & Co[edit]

OK this is an odd one. I can find scant evidence that this company exists: John Wilkes & Co. which sent me looking for other variations. John Wilkes Gun & Rifle Makers had a similar lack of results but turned up a directory listing (ignore the unrelaiability of Tripod for a moment) that provided the company had a website except it doesn't. Similar google searches didn't help. I found this, which asserts: The firm of John Wilkes, still in business and still operated by the Wilkes family, has built both shotguns and rifles for other makers. but I can't find evidence of this at all, other than directory listings. Oh and "John Wilkes" rifle is fairly useless due to a certain assassin with that name. So on that ground, I'm nominating this for deletion. I can't see it ever being more than a sentence without extra info. Travellingcari (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The company seems to be defunct ca. 2004, with the store taken over by a successful gallery incorporating the sign painted on the building. You can actually search for this if you exclude search terms e.g. "-lincoln -booth". But I'm mostly finding listings and precious little actually written about the company or man. --Dhartung | Talk 21:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found the former URL, which I mentioned in the nom, but not the fact that it apparently ceased to exist in 2004. A search for the address turned up Rifle Maker gallery but I couldn't ascertain whether it was another part of the saem building as I didn't find The Telegraph article, so thanks for that. I'm amazed that there seems to be precious little on an a company that existed for 150+ years. Travellingcari (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Joseph Brazier. I found a company listing beginning in 2004 with the same address and phone as the US office of Brazier. --Dhartung | Talk 23:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that, they just seem to be the common US firearms license holder.[5] There's also evidence they're still active, per this 2005 interview on the Brazier website. --Dhartung | Talk 23:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

apparently there's such thing as a John Wilkes rifle, but sold by a different entity. I think that's where some of the confusion lies. Are they still active as a maker, or are these 2ndary markets? I'm inclined toward the latter since I don't know about new guns selling for $24K. I'd like to find some sources to write the article, if it's possible but at this point I'm not sure we can. Maybe if we both keep digging we'll find something. This actually makes me think Wilkes & Brazier were connected much earlier, search for the first instance of 'John Wilkes' - it's in the 1800s. Travellingcari (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yeah, it looks as though the founder of one was the apprentice of the other. I think the finefirearms.com link is reselling the gun in the interview I cited. Too bad the secondary sources aren't turning up, but I sort of assume there must be print gun magazines that have some information, which is why I'd like to preserve it as a redirect, but without an obvious target that looks kaput. --Dhartung | Talk 06:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially agree, but I have a question. Why is it necessary to 'preserve' it as a re-direct? If someone tracks down information from print mags, or possibly very local un Googleified newspapers can't it be re-created? I'm definitely not saying this article should never exist, it could be a good historical profile if the company is proved notable, but I don't understand why we'd preserve one sentence. Am I missing something? Travellingcari (talk) 12:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if it's this hard to figure out whether the company exists, it is clearly not notable. --Asmodeus Samael (talk) 00:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hey, they were around more than a century -- it's worth giving them a chance as they had a long period of existence before there was an internet. --Dhartung | Talk 06:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find find a reliable source to back that up? --Asmodeus Samael (talk) 03:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, albeit weakly, cleanup some of the POV problems in this stub, and flag for expert attention. The existence of this manufacturer seems verifiable. They seem to be mentioned in the article on Lloyd rifle, but that article's link instead goes inappropriately to the eighteenth century politician John Wilkes. At any rate, this was a manufacturer of hard goods of a type that has collectors and hobbyists. Reliable sources for the claims made about this manufacturer, such as price guides that will list products and dates of manufacture, are likely available; it's a matter of finding them. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think price guides qualify as substantial coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:CORP. --Asmodeus Samael (talk) 03:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with AS on price guides here, but my question is re: the POV -- I don't think it's POV so much as the first line of an 'about the company'. Everyone is the maker of 'fine quality...' something or other, even if it's 'fine quality toilet paper' Calling this a stub is a bit of a stretch, it's a sentence. Travellingcari (talk) 04:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not sure I understand how price guides and similar materials are not reliable, third-party sources, at least for the sorts of information we could draw from them. They are published for the benefit of collectors who are highly interested in the subject, and are routinely relied on to judge the authenticity of antiques and other collectables. They more than adequately source the information we would draw from them, which would be a general description of the products made and the years a manufacturer operated. Fancy guns are the subject of a fairly extensive hobbyist trade. There should be something. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response my issue with that is whether price guides are encyclopedic at all. In order for this company to have an article we need to be able to say *something* about it from RS. I don't know if 'here's a chart of the value of their guns' is encyclopedic and or says enough about the company. Travellingcari (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response. The chart would verify statements that said "This manufacturer was active from date until date. They had these sorts of products in their product line." - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lenjore Lekamoi[edit]

Delete this article was blanked by an editor claiming that this person doesn't exist and the article is a hoax. Since it is unsourced, and a quick google search finds only WP & mirrors, this may be true. Unless some sourcing can be found, this ought to be deleted and WP has been hoaxed again due to our lax policies of not requiring sources on all (supposed) BLPs at the bare minimum... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lots of Wiki mirrors. If it's true he's playing for the Cup of Nations it should be easy to find. While I agree that the roster might not be online since the team doesn't appear to have a website, we can't verify that he exists, let alone the claims made in the article. Travellingcari (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Strongly suspect article is a hoax, unable to find any reliable sources to verify his existence. Davewild (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the Tanzanian league is not notable anyway, neither is the national team. Oh no, it isn't. Punkmorten (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd disagree there, it has some sourcing issues, but Tanzania national football team seems notable. I'd think that passes for the highest level of play. Travellingcari (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (non-admin). Gary King (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Globant[edit]

The article was speedied as advertising. Howeevr, the author said that the company is notable in Argentina. Therefore I am putting it here in order to generatea consensus and to give the author some time to improve the article. No opinion from my side. Tone 20:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep there's coverage in a mix of Spanish and English including two that claim it to be the largest of it's kind in Argentina. Issue is pay gates for mst of the articles, including 1, 2. However this one is available and shows recognition in the EU of Globant as a provider of low-cost solutions. This article demonstrates some coverage. I think La Nacion is a RS, but perhaps we need input on someone from Argentina in that regard. Travellingcari (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to have evidence of notability. Snowman (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (non-admin). Gary King (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Bowen (writer)[edit]

Disputed prod. Article currently holds next to no claim of notability; probably strongest claim is climbing Kilimanjaro, which isn't very notable. I considered speedying before prodding, in the hope it would be improved. It seems from the talk page that the article creator is confident others can improve it, but seems reluctant to do so themselves, so here we are. Dweller (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine how you inferred such confidence from "The article certainly deserves more consideration than to disappear on a ProD," especially in light of my other remarks surrounding it.
--Jerzy•t 22:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears notable based on his two published books on one of the hottest topics around. I'll offer at least a G-test, and see if i can figure out how to do Amazon tests on the books. Climbing K'jaro is not notable, unless you are a PhD physicist who does it in order (i infer) to make his scientific and social assessment on global warming more concrete, charismatic, etc. by going to where a set of glaciers is particularly dramatically deteriorating. (IIRC, Kenya has at least investigated the prospect of plastic coverings, anticipating complete disappearance, soon, in the absence of intervention.) He also gets interviewed on public radio; i'll try to confirm my conjecture that it was 25-50 minutes with Terry Gross.
--Jerzy•t 22:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a Fresh Air link. Zagalejo^^^ 01:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you; i see it was a tad over 20 minutes. And i think if anyone suggests she does puff pieces, we'll be able to establish her journalistic chops.
  --Jerzy•t 05:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thin Ice seems to have received a good deal of attention. Zagalejo^^^ 01:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- IMO Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals (3rd point, and c under 4th point) establishes notability, in light of that work having "popular[ity]" of "#50 in ... Mountain Climbing [and #51 in ... Meteorology"], two years after publication, and Censoring Science (on James Hansen, who came on Fresh Air with Bowen following the book's release) being #17 in both Meteorology & Public Policy, about 7 weeks after release. (I've omitted their still higher ranks in the category "... Rivers", out of fear that that presumably tangential category has something odd (like obscurity?) about it, that could make scores within it misleading.)
  --Jerzy•t 05:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the article could be improved with these RS notability assertions, it'd be wonderful. --Dweller (talk) 14:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS
--Jerzy•t 22:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - jc37 02:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Rambo[edit]

Delete was speedied by me as A7, another admin restored it contending that this one-liner asserted notability. She's so nn we don't know where or when she was born, what work she has done, what coloring she has credits for, how precisely she has worked in the biz and where are the reliable sources showing significant coverage as we require for WP:BIO and WP:N. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Busy lady, if the Comic Book Database is correct; she's done quite a lot of work on a number of books. Problem is, nobody seems to have discussed her work - anywhere. I don't think we can do much without several more sources; if they aren't available, delete and leave it to the specialist Wikis (she's listed on Memory Alpha, Wookiepedia and a couple others already). Tony Fox (arf!) 21:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I restored it because it asserted significance. We don't speedy things we think are not notable, we speedy things which do not assert signoficance. I have edited the article, adding the things Carlos could not find, and would like to point out WP:BIO and WP:N are guidance, not policy. I believe this article is informative and allows us to build the web, thus improving the encyclopedia. Hiding T 14:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references Hiding has added ought to establish notability, in particular the Comic Con award. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. GentlemanGhost (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Keep - Good start. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Very POV article; if she is so accomplished, surely there ought to be more hard facts about her. Deb (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete since none of the keep proponents actually gave a reason to do so. Fram (talk) 15:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Descendants of Gustav II Adolf[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Violates WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a genealogical repository). Also unprecedented, we are much more likely to include a person's ancestry rather than their descendants on Wikipedia. Also violates WP:OR and is not properly sourced ("various" being a word used). The article is not an encyclopedic topic and many of the descendants are not notable (in fact, most of them are not). If the fact that the King has descendants is notable then it belongs in his article but we don't list descendants here in Wikipedia as in this article.Charles 20:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As nominator. Charles 20:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete As the article 'Gustav II Adolf' is currently named 'Gustavus Adolphus'. GoodDay (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Question - wait, is your delete argument that Gustav II Adolf should be switched to Gustavus Adolphus? Because that can be easily fixed in a page move if it's an issue, it doesn't require deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt91486 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite true, therefore I'm changing my opinon. GoodDay (talk) 14:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support In hopes the 'Gustavus Adolphus' article will someday be restored as 'Gustav II Adolf'. GoodDay (talk) 14:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion? Charles 01:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's changed his opinion to Keep. D.M.N. (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Matt91486. D.M.N. (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That user did not express an opinion on whether the page should be kept or not. Also, if you read Wikipedia's policies, there is no place for this article. Charles 18:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 19:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete This might be more appropriately located in a genealogoical database such as Ancestry.com. but the individuals in the genealogical directory listing appear to be non-notable for the most part. Gustavus Adolphus was a notable individual, but that notability does not transfer to every descendant. Edison (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merge with Gustav II Adolf. there is no reason to have a separate article for this person's genealogy. --Asmodeus Samael (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge with Gustav II Adolf.Veliky Kniaz (talk) 04:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User's second edit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreadable, incomplete, and likely always to remain so. The descendants of George I of the United Kingdom fill a book (literally) and the offspring of Gustavus Adolphus have had a century longer. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Marasmusine (talk) 09:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Online reality games[edit]

Unreferenced. Failed to establish notability. Just a growing stream of advertisements for game websites. Spam. Recommend this is deleted. Maybe add a brief mention in Reality television or Online games. Anitpatel (talk) 21:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and possibly merge some worthwhile content to Online game. Black Kite 22:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Needs rewriting for literacy, but appears to have real encyclopedic content. The list is a small part of the article. DGG (talk) 02:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep It has some actual info and there is no reason for it to be deleted.It should remain as is.
Delete I see no references, reliable or otherwise. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 06:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless rewritten and properly referenced by closing time. Without refs we can't assess notability. How would we even begin to check all this stuff? The whole thing could be nonsense for all I know. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for all I know this could be a complete hoax or complete OR. There are NO references. Anybody who wants to keep this article should provide verifiable refs to reliable sources. Sbowers3 (talk) 21:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based upon some google searches, I have reason to believe that these games do exist, but I found no coverage of them in anything that could be remotely dubbed a reliable source. --Asmodeus Samael (talk) 00:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Forgive me if my reasoning smacks of WP:WAX, but these seem to have have the same notability level as E-Wrestling feds. Perhaps there is enough for a stubbified version of the article, but I doubt it. -- RoninBK _{T C} 00:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leaderboard Golf[edit]

Substub; fails ~~WP:FICT~~ WP:PRODUCT. Lea (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 02:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article was created as a stub (with a reference) in hopes that as additional information was made available, the page would be updated. Instead, the single reference has now been removed and the page hasn't been expanded. -Digiwrld1 (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think we should at least give it a chance. D.M.N. (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hasn't been edited since September 2007, and highly unlikely that it will be fixed. Gman124 (talk) 16:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Metacritic shows that it has one professional review, by Official Playstation 2 Mag UK. However, multiple sources are preferable for WP:N (nothing at IGN or GameSpot other than token entries). A single source is enough for inclusion in a more generic article, though, such as List of golf video games. Marasmusine (talk) 09:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Needs multiple reliable sources which cover it in detail, in order to satisfy WP:N and in order to have something resembling an article. It was apparently due to come out for Wii, but it seems to just disappear, was it dropped from that console? Apart from that, it was released on PS2 and PC, but by Midas Interactive, a budget label whose marketing budget consists of a few dust bunnies and an elastic band. Almost all of these budget releases never receive enough attention to sustain articles, the mainstream press just isn't interested in them. Someone another 23:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, fails notability for songs per WP:MUSIC Black Kite 00:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cocaine (Emma Dean single)[edit]

Non-notable promotional single (free download/given away at shows). Fails WP:MUSIC. Can't redirect to the album because the album doesn't exist (yet). —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it doesn't claim notability, redirect and merge to the artist page if someone feels so inclined. Tuf-Kat (talk) 21:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, issues with Google's cache should be reported to them directly, not by making pages on Wikipedia. Pegasus «C¦T» 11:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xcritic[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Recreation of previously AFDed page, still no claims of notability that stand up Blowdart | ^talk 18:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears Mr Kleiman is back pushing his own site, with the obvious conflict of interest and no changes to the article which was deleted last time, except this time there's some excuse hinting at libel because google cached the old talk page. Setting aside the legal threat as no changes have been made, the notability references are about the old site it was spun off fun and the page being exactly the same as last time the AFD should be a no-brainer. --Blowdart | ^talk 18:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note User:Gkleinman did not make a legal threat. Another user created a page at xcritic which was pretty clearly defamatory. That page was properly deleted, but unfortunately Google grabbed a cache copy during the brief period it was on Wikipedia. As I understand it, the Google cache will be reset next time Google crawls Wikipedia, so that is not a valid reason to keep this page. Gwernol 18:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course leaving it as a 404 would have been just as effective. Recreating an article that was soundly killed off, and one with a clear COI at that smacks of his self promotion again. --Blowdart | ^talk 19:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page was created as a stop gap to deal with the issue Gwernol mentions. I've submitted the page to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pornography so that the obvious wp:coi issues can be addressed. I think it's unfair for you to characterize my participation as you have. Since the page was deleted I've avoided WP:COI issues in my contributions, and have as per WP policy only suggested relevant links and sourced articles in discussion. Gkleinman (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh rubbish. Your problem is with google cache. So take it up with google, not a recreation of your own company vanity page. Oh and avoiding WP:COI since deletion? Adding yourself as a notable alumni to your old high school is *not* avoiding COI. --Blowdart | ^talk 19:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no moratorium on civility rules when participating in an AfD -- please use more care when discussing other users and article subjects in the future. Shell ^babelfish 23:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note There was a casing difference in the page name; the original page was XCritic; the afd is Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_January_7#XCritic_.28closed.29 here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blowdart (talk • contribs) 19:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note A quick check of google for XCritic did not list the "libellous" page or cached version in the first 5 pages of results. --Blowdart | ^talk 20:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note someone created XCritic as a pure attack page; it has been speedily deleted. This article appears to have been created in an attempt to over-write Google's cache of the attack page, unfortunately, it was created at Xcritic instead. Shell ^babelfish 23:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:CORP. Bearian (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JJDA[edit]

No evidence that it passes WP:CORP and ghits are trivial (even after correcting for the article misspelling the company's name. Travellingcari (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Really poorly written article, no references, non-notable company.--Greatestrowerever (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 05:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Force: Angel Falls[edit]

Article fails WP:N, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOT#NEWS. MrStalker ^(talk) 18:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom., particularly WP:CRYSTAL. 23:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JJL (talk • contribs)
Delete this article DigitalFlow (talk) 15:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)DigitalFlow[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 23:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gustav Jahn[edit]

It's a copyvio of something, I just can't G12 it because I can't find the source to prove it. Either way, lovely man I'm sure but he appears to fail WP:BIO quite impressively. Travellingcari (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: I found one of his books after a number of false positives but due to age, I can't find reviews or anything. Travellingcari (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The article says exactly where it was copied (& translated) from, but the date was presumably in the 19th century, so it would be PD. I do not see how he is other than locally notable however. DGG (talk) 00:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per CSD:R3, it is on the Shrieker dab page, which redirects to the Graboid article where far more information about the creature already exists. Black Kite 09:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shrieker (Fictional Worm Type)[edit]

Tremors cruft. Probably does not merit its own article. If kept, the animal infobox definitely needs to go — I doubt that's appropriate for fictional creatures — and the article needs a name change, but I'm sure this will wind up deleted anyway. tgies (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep A violation of Halt to activities. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't think a species of fictional animal from a television show and a television show character are quite the same. tgies (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I disagree that this constitutes a "fictional character" as contemplated by the injunction and agree with the nominator that the article should go. Otto4711 (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The characters/episodes injunction does not apply because this is not a television character. Note that the article was already speedied once, and that the author removed the current AfD notice. Powers ^T 00:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a monster in a film, and the Arbcom applies only to TV. Blast Ulna (talk) 08:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It was in the movies, but it was also a party of the Tremors (TV series) which was a spin off from the movies. Ank329 (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - going off my previous comment, the TV show has an article with more details in it. So, I suggest the current article be redirected to Graboid#Shrieker Ank329 (talk) 16:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one is ever going to type in "Shrieker (Fictional Worm Type)" as a search term so this has no value as a redirect. Otto4711 (talk) 01:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (has been done) - I have redirected the article to the film the creature is from. This discussion is as good as closed, now. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 00:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, nominator withdrawn with nobody calling for a delete. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avril Phali[edit]

reason nn person article fails wp:bio plus article is unsourced admin or someone please close this i withdraw this afdOo7565 (talk) 17:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as article creator. Player is notable, a quick Google search brings up 10,200 results,the second of which (the first being the Wikipedia entry) is a match report from the PSL. GiantSnowman (talk) 17:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. GiantSnowman (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GiantSnowman. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 17:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment i will withdrew this afd but please put the souce onto the article so people can see it soucred please thats why i sent it to afd for the first place and can you fixed the infobox as well thanksOo7565 (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fix what in the infobox? GiantSnowman (talk) 18:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- never mind the infobox is fine now i just ment put how many times he played for the team in the infoboxOo7565 (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Player satisfies notability as he has played in a fully professional league for Jomo Cosmos. Jogurney (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. krimpet ✽ 18:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same-sex marriage and procreation[edit]

Personal essay full of WP:OR and WP:SYN. Prod tag removed by author, whose website is the source of most content. Recommend Delete unless 3rd-party reliable sources can be found in which this concept is discussed. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 17:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I fail to see why information on this topic cannot be in Same-sex marriage; it does not follow WP:SUMMARY, nor is it even linked to by the obvious parent article. appears to be an essay and I can't think of any way to fix it. -Verdatum (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as essay/synthesis; possible COI. Any info which can be sourced should be added to same-sex marriage. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Changing "vote" based on changes made since this comment. , although like Chris, that would change if there was actually a 3rd party source addressing this. I think TenPound Hammer has hit the nail on the head-- COI (conflict of interest) in the sense that there's nothing neutral about the discussion; and it is an original research synthesis, working from the author's proposition that same-sex marriage is opposed because the partners can't conceive children (or that it's viewed as a good legal excuse for opposing it); then forcing the facts to fit the theory. Under that logic, marriage between two senior citizens would be opposed because they couldn't "procreate". Even some of us who aren't opposed to a "civil union" don't like the idea of a same-sex marriage, and inability to procreate is probably the least likely of those reasons. Regardless, essays aren't kept on Wikipedia. Mandsford (talk) 04:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No-Delete - I am the author, and will respond to the above concerns. With regards to links to other pages, I had planned to do so once the initial page was accepted. With regards to making it part of same-sex marriage, I note that there are two separate Wikipages, Status of same-sex marriage and Timeline of same-sex marriage, and there is enough factual material to supply a Wikipage for same-sex marriage and procreation, similar in length to these other two pages - the current Wikipage same-sex marriage is already fairly lengthy. With regards to finding a reliable 3rd-party source for this concept, I point out the Wikipedia entry for same-sex marriage itself, which four times mentions how courts and others have made use of the procreation aspect of marriage, as well as the procreation language from the Congressional report on the Defense of Marriage Act. As there is a much lengthier factual history of such uses of procreation arguments by opponents and proponents, I think it is important to document many of the facts of this history on a separate Wikipage, given the length of the current [[same-sex marriage] Wikipage. With regards to my proposition, all the page currently states is that procreation is one argument used by courts and others to block same-sex marriage, not the only argument nor the most important argument - just one argument (if there are language edits to make this clear, please suggest them). Any remaining language that appears to be in essay style, I am not sure how to respond - there is much language throughout Wikipedia pages that is just as essay-ish or argumentative - even on the same-sex marriage page itself. I admit I am not neutral on this subject, and have created Web pages not part of Wikipedia where I essay and argue my brains out. But there is value to others in cutting other the factual aspects of my other Web pages for this Wikiepedia entry, which I tried to do. If the language I used to glue the facts together is too opinionated (which I take exception to in light of many other Wikepedia entries), please suggest some changes. User:Greg Aharonian 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Unfortunately, our guidelines on reliable sources do not allow us to cite other Wikipedia articles as documentation. Yes, the concept may be discussed on that page, but we're looking for third-party secondary sources where the term is discussed. If you haven't already, I suggest you take a look at the reliable sources policy linked above, as well as the guidelines on original research and synthesis. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 14:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's possible that if there's a procreation argument, it's been raised in published editorials by commentators, both liberal and conservative, and one can cite to opinion that has been published; but offering one's own opinion is prohibited as "original research", meaning that one's own observations or theories are the basis for the article. To illustrate, a case can be argued that the proponents of same-sex marriage did more than any other group to help George W. Bush get re-elected in 2004; and one could attempt to "prove" this by citing to court cases filed during that year and the November results; but that would be original synthesis. On the other hand, if research determined that George F. Will had expressed that opinion in print, and the column were cited to a verifiable source (Newsweek or the Buford Bugle) that would not be original synthesis. Given the strong feelings on both sides of the issue, you might find this referred to in both evangelical and gay-activist literature. The mention of procreation in a court decision is not the same as showing that that was the basis for the court decision. Mandsford (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No-Delete - The author once again. Chris' and Mandsford's comments are quite helpful, with regards to "secondary sources" and "original research". Mandsford points out that court decision comments are inadequate. So I rewrote the entire section dealing with the Maryland state court decision, using rulings from the decision itself to show how procreation was indeed the basis for at least half of the decision, if not the entire decision. Indeed, the last sentence of the decision states that Maryland has "legitimate interests in fostering procreation". So if you all could review the rewrite to see if it conforms to standards, I would appreciate it. I also rewrote the section on Congress' comments, adding a reference to a Congressional report that explains the authority of legislative histories when interpreting statutes. Thanks. User:Greg Aharonian 16 February 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 08:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the rewrite. The problem is still that you have too much editorializing in this. Don't get me wrong--- same-sex marriage is a valid topic for an encyclopedia, whether one is for it or against it. In this case, your article could be entitled "Ridiculous arguments against same-sex marriage". To quote from the opening : "One objection raised by opponents... is that homosexual couples cannot procreate, and thus are not truly equal to heterosexual couples." (Then, these bigots use this frivolous minor point to further their discrimination)... "Because of this inequality with regards to an aspect of marriage, courts and others argue that same-sex couples do not qualify for equal protection in the marriage laws in light of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution." (Then, a suggestion for what can be done about this oppression): "They might want to directly confront this issue of procreation" (and how they "might" want to do this) "For example, one way to confront this issue directly is to work with scientists who are developing clinical techniques that make same-sex procreation a practical reality (see, for example, the latest on female sperm as one way to achieve same-sex procreation)." The facts that follow are presented from that perspective. An encyclopedia article has to try to be neutral. I'd find it just as unencyclopedic if someone argued their case with the tired old "Adam and Steve" joke that some preachers think is so hilarious. Neutrality is a difficult thing to maintain, particularly if you feel strongly about an issue. I think that a pro-choice or a pro-life advocate would have a difficult time staying neutral on an abortion-related topic. Not everything that gets published on Wikipedia stays on Wikipedia, but no matter what happens, your article has been viewed by a lot of people, partly as a result of being nominated for deletion. Mandsford (talk) 14:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No-Delete - The author once again. Mandsford, I assume you and the others are satisfied that the Contents section has been rewritten sufficiently enough to be "the facts that follow", though I will be glad to receive any suggestions to make the Contents section more neutral (though it is pretty much a series of fact, "in court decision X, on page Y, the court said Z"). And I just rewrote the last sentence of the Introduction, the "What is reviewed below.", trying to make it more neutral. That leaves the first paragraph of the Introduction, which you critique in your most recent comment. I would like to ask a question. Do you think there is ANY wording of the first paragraph to make it a neutral introduction of the facts that follow below (and there are many more facts I would like to add to the Contents section in the months to come - more uses of procreation in judicial decisions, etc.)? If there is such a wording, then over the next few days I will try a few rewrites of the opening paragraph to make it less editorializing. Alternatively, if you can suggest some wording, I would appreciate it. In fact, I am tempted just to get rid of the introduction, and go straight to the facts, but I figure some introduction is needed. User:Greg Aharonian 16 February 2008] —Preceding comment was added at 17:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've changed my vote. I think that you've sufficiently edited this to be an encyclopedia article. It's no longer something that one can say "I agree with this" or "I disagree with this". Given that there will be further court decisions, and in that the ability to procreate is something that has received mention (among other things) in discussions of application of equal protection, I think this is a fair summary of what's occurred so far, and there's room to add to this topic; nations that have permitted same-sex marriage have, no doubt, considered the aspect. If you've not done so already, put a link to this article in other articles about same-sex marriage. Mandsford (talk) 04:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No-Delete - The author once again. Thanks, I appreciate the comments - it does read better now. Now I can start adding more facts and references. Question (my first time with this) - now that you are a KEEP, what do I have to do to remove the Deletion Tag? User:Greg Aharonian 16 February 2008] —Preceding comment was added at 00:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm honored, but it's not really up to me. The debate stays open for awhile, and the tag stays up, until an administrator says "the result was keep" (unless the ultimate result is delete). Then, the administartor removes the deletion tag. At the moment, I think that the closing administrator would acknowledge that the article has been improved since it was nominated, and that nobody has urged a delete after the changes were made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandsford (talk • contribs) 02:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Structured for and assembled of selective treatment of the issue, points to POV fork of main article on same sex marriage. No mention of countervailing legal examples (such as Massachusetts). Per nom, this appears to be a personal essay rather than a sincere attempt at an encyclopedic, neutral treatment of the issue. --Sfmammamia (talk) 07:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Possible conflict of interest. Aharonian is the registrant for samesexprocreation.com, and claims to have submitted a patent application related to this topic. 74.142.90.226 (talk) 13:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, then, I think that the possibility has made him more careful about trying to maintain a neutral tone in his writing. The article is not about same-sex procreation, but rather about same-sex marriage. He's editing under his own name rather than a screen name or an anonymous IP number (maybe 74.142 forgot to log in, it happens to all of us); he conceded at the beginning that he has opinions on the issue and asked for guidance on how to bring the article up to code. I'm against same-sex marriage (based on centuries of tradition even before the Founding Fathers, rather than on the matter of inability to procreate). But I'm even more against scrapping a valid topic when the author is trying to make it conform to encyclopedic standards. Mandsford (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No-Delete - The author once again. A fair objection has been made about selective treatment of the issue. I have thus started adding information on instances (national laws, court decisions) where marriage has been fully extended to same-sex couples independent of the issue of procreation, and will be adding more information as I re-read those cases (for example, to include some quotes from the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision). I will also seek out some third party references to explain the disparity around the world of why in some places the procreation issue is important, and others where it isn't, as well as third party discussions of why procreation isn't important. And hopefully others will add as well. User:Greg Aharonian 19 February 2008] —Preceding comment was added at 17:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete both per lack of WP:V and WP:RS. Subject to re-creation when evidence proves they even exist. Bearian (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kaskad, SVR "Zaslon"[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Unreferenced/ nonverifiable texts about supposed highly secretive (yeah, sure) Russian spec ops by alleged former kgbist, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strelok `'Míkka >t 17:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both unless reliable sources can be found. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 17:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Unsourced and non very notable. Reywas92 ^Talk 20:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both. I have included a couple of sources in "Zaslon". These units do exist and notable. These articles should be improved rather than deleted.Biophys (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your references provide zero information. `'Míkka >t 03:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Kaskad. It is unreferenced, without demonstrated notability, and consists of a combination of two feuding mini-articles. Weak Keep SVR "Zaslon", which does at least have a couple of refs, both from the "Institute for the Study of Conflict, Ideology, and Policy", for what that's worth, and some modest notability. Tim Ross·^talk 16:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Kaskad. Fails WP:A on a base level. Cloudz679 (talk) 14:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - without prejudice. At this point, fails WP:V and WP:RS in a major way. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changes (Kiley Dean album)[edit]

Per WP:MUSIC, unreleased albums are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Google search doesn't find any reliable sources that discuss this album. Bláthnaid 15:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:Music and WP:A. Cloudz679 (talk) 14:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Information about upcoming projects, belongs in the parent article until reliable sources exist for the specific product. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Aston[edit]

Per WP:MUSIC, unreleased albums are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the article he has been working on it since 1996. Come back when it gets released and becomes notable or when it gets adequate coverage as an unreleased album. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:N. Edison (talk) 17:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Edison's comments above. This article appears to be an advertisment for the album. Wikipedia shouldn't be used for that purpose. If the album ever does get released (and quite frankly, I have a funny feeling that this will not be happening for quite some time, if ever), then this article can be restored and edited to look less like an advertisement and more of a discussion of the album/music itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.21.70 (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When you go to the "Bill Ward Official Website" [6], at the "Contact Us" area, you will see that Joe Siegler is listed as the webmaster. Being that he was the author of this article, I believe that a major conflict of interest exists here. This article is no more than an advertisement for an album and an artist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.53.196 (talk) 02:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with Bill Ward (musician) at the very least. I am going to have to go against everyone here. While I understand the argument that this album isn't notable enough, Bill Ward is certainly quite notable. Therefore, we should include at least some information about this album. --Ixfd64 (talk) 06:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with Bill Ward (musician). Just because an album has been in production for a very long period of time does not make information about it useless or irrelevant. I think it's important to note that Bill Ward stated just 2 months ago that it should be done sometime this year, and that media from the album was made available to download and a limited release of another single was available at some point in the past. Seeing as Bill Ward is a pretty notable musician, two tracks from the album have been released in various forms, and the last update was really recent, I think this should stay. TerminX (talk) 06:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Bill Ward (musician). I voted a "Delete" (above); However, I think that the best compromise here would be to merge the artcile with Bill Ward (musician). If the album is ever released, then a new article could be created.--67.100.21.70 (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete: NN minor conlang — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony Appleyard (talk • contribs)

Illudien[edit]

Completely fails WP:FICT and WP:V. Google returns only 16 hits, all unrelated. Likely made-up. Doctorfluffy (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The only ghits for the name of this language's deviser, Carlisle Evans Peck, suggest that he's a high-school student (pictured here) who runs cross-country. Deor (talk) 01:36, 5 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, — Scientizzle 16:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Deor. Gman124 (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. notability not established. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unterlanders Heimweh[edit]

Notability not established. Lea (talk) 11:36, 4 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, — Scientizzle 16:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks adequate refs to show notability. Edison (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Addhoc (talk) 00:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability, and anyway which is not inherited from being on a single brand of keyboard. Bearian (talk) 01:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I'm treating this as an expired WP:PROD, since prod was never tried on this article, and no one has commented or objected to the deletion. Mango juice^talk 15:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amlder[edit]

Does not meet notability requirements, in particular no published album, no non-trivial media coverage. Lea (talk) 11:48, 4 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, — Scientizzle 16:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Bell[edit]

Teen co-author of play that won local play-writing context. Poems allegedly published in bird magazine. Does this stretch WP:NOTE past the breaking point? (note: creator and main contributor appear to be co-author of play.) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete utterly non-notable, borderline Speedy delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sounds like a talented young person, but at this point fails to have sufficient notability for an article. Edison (talk) 16:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. One citation from a reliable source is not enough to establish notability.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Police inspector blog[edit]

The article is borderline spam and judging from the username of the creator, there's a strong suspicion of conflict of interest. Assertions about the importance and popularity of the blog are unreferenced and while the blog may or may not be notable enough for inclusion, the article in its current state is unacceptable. Pichpich (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - self-referenced, non-notable stub about a blog. Bearian (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete It may have many readers but I can't find any reliable sources talking about it so fails WP:WEB. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable stub about a blog.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Internet rounds[edit]

Article appears to exist solely to promote Redmond Burke, Teges Corporation, and related i-Rounds product. Very few (medical-related) ghits other than Burke and Teges. "Internet rounds" appears to have some usage to mean doctor-to-doctor consultations, not doctor-to-patient consultations, such as here . Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only one journal reference (which the creator of this article attempted to defiantly canvas all over Wikipedia). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - well Burke does have an article on it at PMID [7] which makes him sacred at FAC. Convince me more! Mattisse 00:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. RogueNinja_talk 12:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Superdrol[edit]

This is a previously deleted article for a non-notable product. The "article" does not establish notability other than being a brand of prohormone/designer steroid. The information used to assert notability is unsourced, or is simply culled from marketing that was used by the manufacturer itself about its own product. Note that no other discontinued brand of prohormone (Nortesten, Anotesten, Androsol, 1-AD for example) has it's own Wikipedia entry - despite that there were over 50 other brands on the market at one time. Nor do any designer steroids save for Tetrahydrogestrinone and Desoxymethyltestosterone which has an article under it's chemical name (not as "The Clear" or "Madol" as they were branded/commonly known). And while this particular product is no longer sold, the brand of supplements - "Anabolic Extreme" - is still in existance, making this a possible advertisement. Of note, the user who created and primarily contributed to the article has not made any other Wikipedia edits other than to promote this product/brand. Quarte t 15:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete maybe redirect to steroid RogueNinja_talk 19:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Not notable and no verfiable sources from which to create an entry.--Yankees76 (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google scholar appears to have a couple of decent sources[8], including what appears to be a paper in the The American Journal of Gastroenterology about SuperDrol, and the drug was part of an investigation by the Washington Post[9]. I think it meets the notability threshold and a decent article could be written.--Kubigula (talk) 04:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. For what it's worth, I will commit to cleaning up the article if it's kept. I'm reluctant to spend the effort when the consensus here is leaning towards deletion.--Kubigula (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons listed above. Redirect to Anabolic steroid. Any verifiable info from links above about this drug can be listed there. --Komrade Kiev (talk) 13:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete not notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to MADtv recurring characters#Real **********ing Talk, as the content of this article has already been merged there. Redirect from the sketch title should not be deleted as long as the latter article continues to mention the sketch. This will preserve attribution for the content, both to satisfy a GFDL requirement and answer the practical question of "who originally wrote this?", and aid in searching, navigation. — CharlotteWebb 17:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Real **********ing Talk[edit]

Delete - prod removed without comment, which, whatever. Fails WP:NOT#PLOT as nothing but plot descriptions of the various iterations of the sketch. No reliable sources indicate that the sketch has any independent notability. The notability of MadTV does not impart notability to every individual segment. Otto4711 (talk) 15:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into MADtv. Gman124 (talk) 16:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Prod placed at first - but was removed. The does no seem to pass WP:NOT#PLOT - Milk's Favorite Cookie 19:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been removed and merged with the MADtv article. So delete the page if it makes you happy. (Deej30 (talk) 11:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I have reverted your redirect. Articles under AFD may not be blanked during the AFD process. Otto4711 (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then just delete it! Spare us your hollow justifications!Thank you(Deej30 (talk))

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

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

The result was Delete Deleting redirect also. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Futon Critic[edit]

Article is non-notable, and has not been cleaned up or updated in its lifetime; also reads like a personal advertisement. Rockhound (talk) 15:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 15:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete waaaay under WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only ref is a blog (and it is a ref for the founder, not the site) UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, though that that because the article's creator is a notorious Wikilink spammer, there are almost 100 WP artcles in the Article namespace that link to this page (as can be seen here), so if it is deleted it will pop right to the top of Wikipedia:Most Wanted Articles and so might be immediately recreated, unless someone is diligent about also deleting all those backlinks. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Willing to edit backlinks if necessary. Rockhound (talk) 07:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article Brian Ford Sullivan redirects here, and I think that's preferable over having a biographical article on him. This article can be about the website and the person behind it. David Kushner of Rolling Stone magazine wrote on October 2, 2007, "Which sites do networks troll? Top bookmarks include the Futon Critic, TV Squad and the favorite, Television Without Pity."[10]. Brian Stelter, a reporter for The New York Times, referred to the site in February 2008.[11] The site was mentioned in a column called "Trivia Q&A" by Tina Beaumont-Clay in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram on October 20, 2005. Looking at the articles that link to the page, it looks like it's cited alot in articles about television shows. Over 90 articles link to it. --Pixelface (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If this article is deleted, the Brian Ford Sullivan redirect page will be deleted also, so that is not a problem. The blog and press mentions you cite do not rise to the level of "significant coverage" that is required by WP:WEB. The reason so many articles link to this site is because BFS is an active linkspammer, as I mentioned above - that is no reason to keep the article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I believe the reason so many articles link to this article is because thefutoncritic.com is cited frequently (for news, etc) in television articles. For example, the featured list List of Heroes episodes cites the website for television ratings. The Rolling Stone article said the website is one of the "top bookmarks" that television industry professionals consult, so I assume it's notable. I've seen no evidence that the article's creator, Seinfreak37, is a "notorious Wikilink spammer." Of the 88 articles that link to The Futon Critic or Futon Critic, the creator has edited one of them, The New Adventures of Old Christine. On that article on October 16, 2006, Seinfreak37 turned "The Futon Critic" into a wikilink.[12] 36 minutes later, this article was created.[13]. --Pixelface (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've found numerous use in references that I would consider legitimate without trawling the article history. I'd like to see more evidence of the linkspam claims. That said, I don't think it is salient to notability, and should only be an issue if notability is marginal. The notability case for the website appears below-average but legitimate. --Dhartung | Talk 21:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - hugely popular website. Ghits=439,000. The article is guilty as charged when it comes to quality, but this site is very notable.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 22:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Cite your reference. Besides, if the site was so notable, people would have updated the wiki page when it was flagged as needing one. Rockhound (talk) 00:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete the article as original research and a political soap box, but keep as a redirect to United States federal courts. Bearian (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Federal court ruling[edit]

The stated goals of this article don't warrant the article's independent existence. For example, "[Whether] Clearly, lower courts can give orders to the White House and to federal agencies - which must be obeyed under pain of arrest, imprisonment, fines..." (see talk page) This is not a question about "federal court rulings," as such. This is a question of separation of powers. The question about how, when, and to what degree the executive must adhere to a federal court ruling is a very complex question, and it is properly answered with a discussion of the various spheres of operation of the three branches of government, which discussion is incident to an article on separation of powers, not on the nebulous concept of a "federal court ruling." Hence, my point is that there are existing tools on wikipedia that enable readers to find the information necessary to approach these questions. Articles on federalism, the federal system in general, separation of powers, etc. surely lead a reader to what he seeks. The problem is that the questions sought to be answered by this article often don't have "answers" per se, so much as they are questions inherent to our system of government that are constantly discussed.

Also, more generally, what is even meant by a "federal court ruling"? Is it a preliminary ruling? Is it a constitutional judgment? Is it a rule of construction? Is it criminal? Civil? What federal court rulings does it refer to? District? Courts of Appeal? Tax Court? Court of Federal Claims? FISA Court? There are MANY types of federal court rulings; they cannot be generalized like this article attempts to do. This heading is far too broad to lend itself to any sort of meaningful discussion. The questions about the import of a given federal ruling require context to lead to any meaningful answers. The context in which a ruling is made will be determinative of what it means, who it binds, and myriad other things.

Further, the statement that a federal court is the highest court possible is a patently incorrect statement. There are many federal courts that are "inferior" to state courts. This is not a question of the superiority of the court, per se. Rather, it's a question of the subject matter of the case or controversy before the court.

As it stands, it is my opinion that this article and the stated reasons for its existence reflect a general misunderstanding of the law and of our tripartite system of government. The questions sought to be answered by this article simply cannot be answered in the vacuum of this article. Rather, they are subsidiary questions arising out of the very nature of federalism and our system of separation of powers. This article simply is grossly over-simplistic in what it is attempting to do. In sum, the issues raised by this article are not inherent to "federal court rulings," and their independent discussion breeds confusion. They are inherent to our system of government; hence, they are best discussed in those contexts. Gorotdi (talk) 15:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research essay about the federal courts versus the executive branch lacks refs. Contains helpful info such as "A federal court ruling is a ruling made by a Federal Court,.." Edison (talk) 17:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The term is certainly widely used, but it can mean so many different things, and bringing in the executive oversight angle seems superfluous (certainly they are not the only subjects of federal court rulings). I would then redirect to federal court. --Dhartung | Talk 21:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Federal court. This is simply not a useful article; if there is anything worth saying about 'federal court rulings', it can be said there. Terraxos (talk) 05:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a redirect to United States federal courts. I think this is the same thing as Terraxos just said, but "delete" means leaving behind a red link. I want to emphasize that a topic with over 100,000 Google hits is significant. Whether it's a section or a standalone article doesn't matter, just don't eliminate the topic entirely. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a bit presumptuous that one searching for "federal court ruling" will mean the U.S. variety, particularly given the fact that--as the article points out--other countries have federal courts as well. That, coupled with the fact that this term has no real meaning, warrants deletion as opposed to redirect. It's also instructive that neither "state court ruling" nor "supreme court ruling" exist on Wikipedia, in redirect form or otherwise. Gorotdi (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ghearufu[edit]

Apparently this in some way relates to Dungeon and Dragons. I don't see how this could be notable outside of the realm of the fiction. Google gives 497 hits but a lot of those look to be people's handles on message boards/forums. There's also no real context here aside from a couple of mentions of books. Metros (talk) 13:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are zillions of D&D magical items, and while this one has appeared in at least 2 books (according to the article) I don't see any particular reason why an encyclopedia should cover it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Starblind. Non-notable fragment from a notable game franchise. Edison (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is non-notable, not worth it for Wikipedia. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 19:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete

Campbells Shortbread[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Campbells Shortbread

Delete This page has been highlighted by other users as not having valid references and for not being notable. The page was added recently and includes 2 external references; both of which appear to be written by the company itself. Despite warnings, no independent references have been added. Spyrobot (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I fixed the header for you, as you meant to list Campbells Shortbread, not PageName. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no substantial third party coverage whatsoever. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment hah, and I thought someone had written a bot to automatically AfD articles with ((notability)) tags or something. I guess the question is whether these trade magazine articles are acceptable: [14][15]. They claim that Campbells are Scotland's oldest bakery, but I'm not sure whether that statement had any editorial oversight. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. cab (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A google check shows only advertisements and pages by the company itself. (Berjangles (talk) 15:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Having difficulty finding independent sources, but their products are on supermarket shelves worldwide. Mayalld (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Mayalld, initially I thought that this was indeed a company with worldwide products, but this is not the same as Campbells that makes the soups, etc. On this company I cannot find any third party references for notability. (Thebensteads (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Comment it is indeed a different company to the soups and tinned food lot. However, their Petticoat Tails shortbread is very widely known Mayalld (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We can verify 1) that this is a 170 year old business, remarkable for being in the same family. 2) It is Scotland's oldest bakery [16]. That's easily enough to keep.--Doc^g 01:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the text in this reference appears to be written by the company itself, and so cannot be considered a third party reference. (Berjangles (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Visit Scotland is a government organisation. Whoever wrote the text (and you are speculating) it is published by a reliable third-part source.--Doc^g 20:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm pretty sure that the companies themselves write these texts for this website. If you look at a selection of them you will see the words "us" and "we" used a lot; e.g. [17]. (Berjangles (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Comment The reference given here by Doc is the same one as used in the original article (Campbells Shortbread) and was highlighted as not being a third-party reference. The site is, in effect, a collection of advertisements for local services. (Spyrobot (talk) 08:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Comment Doc, VisitScotland.com is not a government organisation. See the wikipedia articles for visitscotland and visitscotland.com (eTourism Ltd). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.195.185.190 (talk) 10:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Em, read closer. eTourism ltd is partly OWNED by VisitScotland, which is the government tourist agency.[18]--Doc^g 21:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - add to the previous prooven facts that it is worldwide in its appeal (com.hk?!?!). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exit2DOS2000 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How are you concluding that the previous facts are proven? Isn't that the debate; about whether the reference is third party or not? Looking at the link...not many of the products listed have their own wikipedia pages —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.195.185.190 (talk) 10:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cab has shown 2 links that I believe are solid enough to confirm that this is in fact the oldest. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 22:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all of the discussion on this topic. It generated more input than I was expecting. The arguments appear to be;

- If the company is the oldest bakery in Scotland then this is certainly notable and the article should stand.

- However, the reference for this claim does not appear to be independent, third party.

This second point was highlighted on the article's page, but no third party reference has been found. The claim may well be true, however Wikipedia can only show information that is independently verifiable. Without this claim, the article loses notability.

I hope this is a fair summary of the discussion.

(Spyrobot (talk) 16:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Delete - fails verifiability on any claim to notability, thus failing WP:COMPANY. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete both. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Motors automobile collectibles[edit]

Does not appear to be a notable subject for an article. Article is orphaned since 2006. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 12:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related page for the same reasons (except this is linked from one article and does not have the orphan tag):[reply]

--Snigbrook ^(talk) 12:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article was created by a contributor who would look for any excuse to showcase his toy collection on Wikipedia. This article is nothing but fluff. Karrmann (talk) 14:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with Karrmann, plus I can't find any reliable sources that discuss either of these topics. Somno (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Most-likely made up in school one day, unverifiable, and per consensus below. Malinaccier (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Claritism[edit]

New spiritual movement. Non-notable by its own admission and quite possibly made up. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most likely something that got made up one day; gets absolutely nothing of use on Google. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. By its own admission, it is little-known and thus showing it is notable at this point in time will be extremely difficult, if not impossible. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 12:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable or made up in school one day. BonesBrigade 13:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The second paragraph almost explicitly states that it was made up in school one day. -FrankTobia (talk) 14:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 14:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete second paragraph gives it away, it's a WP:NFT case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, self-admitted soapboxing of something made up one day. Jfire (talk) 15:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete religioncruft. JuJube (talk) 16:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Rodriguez[edit]

Musician notability in question Matthew_hk t c 10:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Matthew_hk t c 10:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Member of an unsigned band whose MySpace page offers no indication of notability. PC78 (talk) 11:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the band isn't notable enough for an article and that's all the lead singer has done, this article isn't notable enough to stay —αlεx•mullεr 11:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable musician --Boss Big (talk) 13:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ѕandahl 03:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burning Image[edit]

This doesn't seem to meet the criteria for a notable band as laid out in WP:MUSIC. Pairadox (talk) 09:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agreed. There's nothing there that fulfil the notability criteria to keep, and the band's MySpace (where their site redirects to) doesn't have anything more. —αlεx•mullεr 11:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like it fails WP:MUSIC. -FrankTobia (talk) 14:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 18:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could find no third-party references either in Google News archives or in a library database of newspaper and magazine articles. If no sources turn up, then delete. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hydroactivo[edit]

AFD of disputed PROD. Non-notable fictional (as far as I can tell) article which is not verified. Note that prod was supported by a second editor who said "repost, hoax not current WWE tag team champs and never have been" Deadly∀ssassin^(talk) 08:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely non-notable. I searched and couldn't find anything significant on the web detailing the content in the article. Although, in its current form, it's a mess anyway, so that might be the problem. Delete for now. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 08:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely non-notable fictional characters. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 14:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-Notable. Gman124 (talk) 16:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be a hoax - current WWE tag champions [19]. —Moondyne 07:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Add Matt Hydra and Brian Hydra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), the latest attempt to create these two as WWE champs. Pairadox (talk) 10:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I changed that to a redirect for the time being. —Moondyne 10:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this is a relevant edit for this discussion. Apparently their championship is scheduled for July 2018. Pairadox (talk) 10:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology 0-8: The Book of Basics[edit]

Did some searching in news and book archives, could not find any significant discussion of the book in secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources. Though the book is mentioned in a few other books, this is only a passing mention, I could not find sources which analyze, discuss, or review the work enough to establish notability. Aside from these off-Wiki searches, the article itself is unsourced, and a blatant violation of WP:OR. The 2 external links are both to self-referential, primary source websites. Cirt (talk) 07:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article itself is a collection of discombobulated quotes with little to no explination of their importance or why those where chosen. as for the book, I havn't found anything either that convinces me this article adds anything to the body of knowlage in wikipedia.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Actually, it does not even assert notability or cite any non-Scientology references. No evidence exists that it is even notable within that sect. Bearian (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. On the keep side, we have suggestions that there are sufficient secondary sources in the article, but the delete based comments give a more compelling argument with policy based (WP:V, WP:N..) reasoning. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newton Study Center[edit]

It is not a notable educational institution in the Philippines and it seems to be an advertisement because of its inclusion in almost all Philippine-based Wikipedias. Jojit (talk) 06:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advert. Lack of G hits (most of which are Wiki mirrors) and versions restricted to Philippine language Wikipedia. note that afd was reverted twice in the article.--Lenticel ^(talk) 07:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article passes the primary notability criterion: "An entity is presumed to be notable if it has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Linaew (talk) 07:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: on the article alone, there are no links suggesting secondary source citations. --Howard the Duck 08:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Contra User:Linaew, there is no evidence of any reliable secondary sources (i.e. something which is not the Newton Study Center's website, their advertisements, or random blogs and forums). Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL ... nothing on GNews, not even get thinly-veiled advertorials. cab (talk) 08:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 08:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The content is within the interest to a certain segment of the population. It could be edited to make it factual. By having it on the wikipedia will make the information more editable and verifiable by the users of wikipedia. An additional ariticle on wikipedia means that more information is appropriated by the wikipedians. Azumizoku (talk) 09:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Upon further inspection, this establishment is not a school; it's review center. I dunno if in other countries "review centers" exist but in the Philippines, these "review centers" are established for the sole purpose of passing certain exams, such as the different board and college entrance exams. These are not regulated by the Department of Education (Philippines) (at least on my latest account). --Howard the Duck 09:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:Sandai Yobiko: article in Japanese wikipedia is an example of a review school. If you are interested in a list of review schools in Japan look at Category:List of Review Schools (page in Japanese Wikipedia) Azumizoku (talk) 09:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - What is the difference between a review center and a review school? --Howard the Duck 09:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Basically similar. Although, review entities in Japan could be divided into a jukuand a yobikou. Although, the entity at hand does not use "review center"; it uses "study center"; i believe they are all similar and no need to distinguish. Azumizoku (talk) 09:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Are these study centers regulated by the education ministry? --Howard the Duck 09:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Both of you are missing the point. Being regulated by the Department of Education, the Department of Corrections, or the Department of Apocalyptic Affairs isn't important. Sandai Yobikou is notable because it has non-trivial sources about it, e.g. [20][21]. Having an article about Sandai Youbikou doesn't mean that every little non-notable review school gets to have its own article too, any more than having an article about La Tour d'Argent means that every single restaurant with a Department of Health inspection certificate hanging on their wall gets a space on Wikipedia where we regurgitate what they say about themselves on their own website. cab (talk) 07:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually, quite a few Philippine public high schools went into AFD and were saved because they were administered by the Dept. of Education and hence notable by default; review centers aren't regulated by the DepEd (actually I don't know what agency regulates them, the SEC perhaps...). --Howard the Duck 08:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, then edit. Should be rewritten to avoid sounding like an advertisement. Starczamora (talk) 14:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't matter if we rewrite it to avoid "sounding" like an advertisement, the organisation is so non-notable that the only information about it is that which it chooses to publicise about itself, and that information has seen no third-party verification. WP:SELFPUB states that articles should not be based primarily on self-published sources, and there's nothing else which we could possibly base this article. cab (talk) 00:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Howard: neither a school nor notable. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why we must delete this article? I thinks is not an advert 'cause is information about a University like oxford or Cambridge. This article must not be deleted. --Jeneme (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment UPCAT review currently redirects to this article even if there are lots of review schools here that caters to UPCAT reviewers. Note that the references given are not independent and the bitstop link looks like an ad. This review center was established in 2001 so I believe more online references should be found for this article as most online Philippine newspaper articles are limited to 2000's.--Lenticel ^(talk) 22:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I redirected UPCAT review and Upcat review to University of the Philippines College Admission Test for now and watchlisted them. cab (talk) 00:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a for-profit entity, right? We need to apply WP:ORG, WP:N and WP:RS standards strictly when it comes to for-profit entities. And even if we didn't, I see no reliable, independent sources here at all and, having looked at Google, Google News and Google News Archives, no clear prospects for getting them. Noroton (talk) 21:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

En Fuego[edit]

Non-notable local amateur softball team Drdisque (talk) 06:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. notability unestablished. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom.BWH76 (talk) 12:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OrganizedWisdom[edit]

Deleted via prod and then contested at DRV. The cited sources are primarily incidental mentions which don't provide enough material to write a substantial article. Has not been shown to meet WP:WEB criteria. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The more recent citations, in particular, are substantive, with the Salon article referring to this site as a solution to a significant problem experienced by people seeking health information online. Patriciajane (talk) 20:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia, all your contributions at wikipedia have been to add links to organizedwisdom, contest its deletion or to alter the article itself. What is your connection to the site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.210.172 (talk) 08:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'd better logged in fast--NAHID 08:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources have the site as the main subject of the article. Does not meet WP:WEB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.210.172 (talk) 08:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, it apparently failed WP:WEB--NAHID 08:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW. As a rationale, I cite arguments indicating a lack of notability, sources, and concerns of Original Research. The redirect on the search term proposed by RoninBK is reasonable, which will explain why this remains a bluelink. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 04:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek Security[edit]

Contested prod. Concern was: "Article on newly coined neologism with no reliable sources to indicate the term is in common usage; suggest deletion per WP:NOT#OR/WP:NEO." Muchness (talk) 05:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced neologism. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not for stuff you made up in school one day. Pairadox (talk) 05:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable neologism. GlassCobra 06:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Somebody stick a red shirt on this neologism and beam it down to the surface. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sounds like a fascinating talk, but severely lacks notability. Perhaps if it's widely adopted and appears in secondary sources ... that sort of thing. --Dhartung | Talk 07:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the aboveBeeblbrox (talk) 07:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above (especially Clarityfriend - haha), also "Jason Muskat" does not appear to be a very notable name beyond certain forums and mailing lists.--Deadly∀ssassin^(talk) 08:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above Canyouhearmenow 12:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - delightful article, but a seriously non-notable term. jamesgibbon 12:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a term apparently used only in one speech doesn't even rise to the term "neologism". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. Never asserts notability Doc Strange (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"It's dead, Jim!" Not every phrase uttered in every lecture deserves an encyclopedia article absent any independent coverage in any reliable source. Pure original research. The observation that the computers on StarTrek had no passwords, so anyone could walk up and do anything, ignores the possibility that by then there are biometric methods of ensuring that the user is authorized. Edison (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The whole premise is severely faulty--I'm only a very casual watcher of Star Trek and I can recall several instances of password-like technology, including at least one whole episode that hinged on keeping what they called "command codes" out of the wrong hands. If I remember correctly, day-to-day stuff like accessing computer systems and such was done by "voiceprint" which was also a crucial plot point on occasion (like when Picard became a kid and the computer no longer recognised him as captain). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Trek continuity on the little things was never that great to begin with. But in any case faulty or not it still needs to be judged on notability rather than correctness. --Dhartung | Talk 21:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Utterly agreed that notability is the key, and there is a complete lack of it here. But FTR: Self destruct sequences required authentication. The Motion Picture had a retinal scan required to access material. The Wrath of Khan showed that systems were encrypted with a "prefix code" to ensure commands came from authorized controls. First Contact had an encryption that stymied the Borg. In short, was this term at all notable, we fans would come out of the woodwork with cited ways that gives the lie to the definition. So Article Self-Destruct Sequence One: Code Delete, Delete, Delete-B, :) 74.134.100.173 (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very enjoyable reading, but it doesn't belong here per WP:NEO. BusterD (talk) 14:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article, and redirect search term to Starfleet#Starfleet Security -- RoninBK _{T C} 00:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:CSD G12 criteria; copyright violation of this. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 05:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xavier Omon[edit]

Article's subject does not meet the notability requirements of an athlete and appears to be nothing more than a copy and paste of a news article. Billdorr (talk) 04:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's because it is a copy and paste of a news article -- this one, in fact. Speedy delete G12 as blatant copyvio, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted under WP:CSD#R3. Mango juice^talk 07:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Ovi Magazine 2[edit]

Content already exists at Ovi Online Magazine, this seems like an unlikely candidate for a redirect. Carom (talk) 04:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Autozine[edit]

Doesn't seem to be a notable magazine. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I clicked the link and it is a pretty good website, but it fails WP:WEB --Boss Big (talk) 13:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable magazine, and the article itself is just a list of all the awards they have given out. To keep the list, there should be some external sources to back it up and provide more notability to it. Ank329 (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all reasons stated above. Note that the page's creator, Monkeyman935 (talk · contribs · logs), has so far had this page and Naru-Tard nominated for deletion. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ѕandahl 03:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican Hot 100[edit]

Apparent hoax. Compare the initial revision of the article [22] with the Canadian Hot 100 article - basically identical with a few crude changes - and a few missed ones, e.g. the "Mexican Hot 100 will serve as the definitive measure of Canada's most popular songs". References appear fake - translating them with Google's Spanish to English translator shows them to be random pages on Spanish-language sites with no reference to any Hot 100 charts. Pages were created by User:Password16 who has offered no response to questioning about the articles, and who I believe to be serial hoaxer User:Maneisis returned under another account - see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive335#Dubious edits by User:Maneisis for my previous investigations of his long-term hoax edits. Stormie (talk) 03:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also included in this AfD -

Mexican Hot 100 number-one hits of 2007

Mexican Hot 100 number-one hits of 2008

Delete as apparent hoax. ~~Also note that many songs have fictional Mexican Hot 100 chart positions listed; might wanna check into those too.~~ I went through and removed some bogus Mexican Hot 100 positions from a bunch of song articles. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see further discussion here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I agree, this is a hoax, but a fairly pervasive one. All Google hits regarding "Mexican Top 100" are to Wikipedia, or to fan sites reporting the position of one of two songs: Britney Spears' Piece of Me or Paris Hilton's Stars Are Blind. However, it is likely that those reports were, themselves, garnered from Wikipedia, as the articles for both songs include the Mexican Top 100 (although in the case of Spears, the Mexican Top 100 reference appears only in the Italian-language Wiki here[23]). For Stars Are Blind, the link was added by User:Magg 608 here[24], but may well be a good faith edit drawing on false information. (Note that they also added a legitimate Mexican chart at the same time). Given that, at any given time, there need to be 100 songs on any Top 100 list, and given that this list was supposedly published weekly since 1998, I find it suspicious that only two songs are mentioned by Google, and that the external link provided to the Top 100 list does not, in fact, lead anywhere resembling a list of any sort. This is definitely a hoax. --Ig8887 (talk) 04:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hats off to Stormie for catching this one, which makes a few (but not enough) substitutions on "Canadian Hot 100". Extremely lame as hoaxes go. If you're no damn good at telling a joke, don't even try. Mandsford (talk) 12:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. And I guess I can let Stormie take the credit for discovering this hoax ;) ^anemone│_projectors 13:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No one including myself has ever heard of it and has no reliable sources Vala M (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't meet any speedy criteria (except maybe G3 -- pure vandalism). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hoax. - eo (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S., the Geoff Mayfield mentioned in the article is the charts manager for Billboard magazine, who publish the Canadian Hot 100. - eo (talk) 01:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. To the article creator(s)/band members, if you can demonstrate reliable coverage from external, secondary sources, come on by my talk page and leave the links to the articles--I'll be happy to evaluate them and let you know if this article is worth restoring. Otherwise, this has failed our notability guideline for musical groups and should stay deleted. — Scientizzle 17:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miseria[edit]

Disputed Prod. Does not meet WP:MUSIC - no albums released, no reliable secondary sources. - IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 02:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7 Band - superβεεcat 03:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:BAND. I bundled their albums into this discussion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Notability per WP:MUSIC is unestablished. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
we meet all criteria under the music standards, we have published works in northern california, which are also available nationwide through myspace.com and snocap.com, the first demo we released is fully copyrighted and we own all permissions to it so there is no reason why our pages should be deleted, everything stated on them is factual and can be proven to every extent and in reading wp:music we meet the standards. so we are please asking you to remove the proposal of deletion, thank you. Shadowguy76 (talk) 06:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MySpace is not a reliable source. We cannot remove the deletion tag because other users have stated that they think the page should be deleted. I, for one, don't see how your band meets WP:MUSIC in any way -- no major label albums, no charted singles, no notable members, no awards, and no assertation of any notability. Just having a MySpace and being known in a small circle is not enough to be notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BAND --Boss Big (talk) 13:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although they succesfully weathered MySpace's notoriously stringent application process for bands and acquired a rare and coveted Myspace account (you sure don't see many bands with those!), they still don't pass WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability per WP:MUSIC Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 07:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

as i stated before we are not only on myspace and snocap, we have many news articles from different papers as well, which links were provided for. and wp:music clearly states that you only need to meet one requirement, we meet the first one, it does not state that you have to have a major label release, or to have won an award or anything like that, it merely states that that is one of the requirements that would validate it. and saying that myspace isn't notible displays pure ignorance. it is THE BIGGEST networking and advertising tool on the planet, how can you get any more notible than that. you dont have to win a grammy to be notable, there are tons of bands that haven't won any rewards on wikipedia. there are no rules or guidelines being broken by us having a wikipedia page.

70.134.78.4 (talk) 04:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and another thing...how are we only known in a small circle when we have fans all over the world, last time i checked that's not too small.

70.134.78.4 (talk) 04:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I would also suggest you read the conflict of interest guideline. Cheers, IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 01:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that is also something that was stated before, the page was not created by anyone in the band it was created by one of our fans and they told us what was happening and asked us to step in.

70.134.78.4 (talk) 07:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete all. — Scientizzle 17:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dj i.r. remixes[edit]

Non-notable album which fails WP:MUSIC. Page created by what appears to be the artist, who removed prod tag. Recommend Delete. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 02:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also listing Whatever U Like(I.R. Remix)ft. Keri Hilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Same rationale. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 02:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Delete~~ Delete (per below... though there's no snarking difference...) ~~A7 Band~~ NN album- superβεεcat 03:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A7 doesn't apply to albums. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately. Any chance of getting that changed? // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 04:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know that my otters are in agreement there, but we'd still have to take it up with Jimbo or something. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both for failing notability criteria for songs and albums. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete If A7 aplied to albums, this would be a speedy for sure. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. No claim of meeting WP:MUSIC in albums. Artist and album not found at allmusic.com (so probably has not charted). Two of the songs are at allmusic; both Whatever U Like and Be Good to Me have their own wikipedia articles and don't need another article on a non-notable remix.--Fabrictramp (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn (keep) with no support for deletion. JERRY ^talk _contribs 14:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Neath the Arizona Skies[edit]

Possibly the worst of the Duke's early shoot-em-ups, a typical B western with not much to distinguish it. This article consists solely of directory-type information, and unsourced plot summary. Already covered in adequate detail in John Wayne filmography (1926-1940). Delete. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. —JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't see us deleting an article on a movie starring John Wayne, or any star of similar calibre, even if it is an early and unremarkable work. There are plenty of John Wayne biographies out there so I doubt sourcing is an issue. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Stars a legendary actor, IMDB profile, is notable enough --Boss Big (talk) 02:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. AFD isn't clean-up. After a quick look at Google Search and Google Books Search, notability definitely still stands. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I am hearing that the movie inherits notability from the actor... is that right? So shall we toss out WP:NOTINHERITED? Is there some assertion that this movie has received multiple non-trivial mention in reliable secondary sources that are independant of the subject? Or is everything John Wayne a no-brainer keep? JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that. Per WP:SET, a regular Google search shows over 10,000 results, and a Google Books search shows 12 results, which is more than enough for the purpose of notability. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I spent hours going through the google results. I found 3 valid sources. I added all of them to the article. The rest were blogs, personal webpages, mirrors of WP or IMDB/ IMDB clones, or people selling/renting the movie. But "3 sources" is "multiple", and "just barely notable" is "notable" so... I guess we should keep it. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Note: The above comment is NOT sarcasm.[reply]

Keep AFD is not cleanup. Stars a notable actor, seems to be the subject of multiple reliable sources, etc. etc. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google Books sources and a NYT review really are more than a lot of movie articles have. This is an historical topic and judging solely by online search results has limitations. --Dhartung | Talk 05:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. Encyclopedic means a compendium of all knowledge. If information is verifiable and well sourced it should have a place in Wikipedia. I see nothing at all harmful in keeping articles like this one. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 09:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy del as a produce of a suspected sock who has been manufacturing such articles. `'Míkka >t 21:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Am Trap[edit]

Another article about an apparently upcoming album which fails WP:V. A Google search for "I Am Trap" "Young Jeezy" returns only ten hits - the only relevant pages being WP mirrors. Also, the external links provided in the article do not mention this release at all. Nothing on the artist's official website either. Delete per WP:V, WP:CRYSTAL. May even be a hoax.

Call Em' Out is also being included in this AFD, as a supposed single (stub article with no references) from this unverifiable album. Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After much searching, I cannot find a single reliable secondary source. Non-notable at best, a hoax at worse - either way, obvious delete. - superβεεcat 03:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If any sources are found then merge into Young Jeezy discography until seperate notability is established.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possible hoax and non-notable. Canyouhearmenow 12:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Cradel 15:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: So, not even a record that hasn't proven any significance, but a guess about what might be a record...? Utgard Loki (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

High frequency computing[edit]

Non-notable neologism, no sources given or easily available, main author agrees with deletion, see Talk:High frequency computing for details. Tavix (talk) 01:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This was written when I was unfamiliar with WP:N and do not object. Um, why wasn't this WP:PRODed? Ronnotel (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was, but Tavix apparently decided to give it a chance at AfD. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's possible there is another term for this concept, but "high-frequency" is more often used with hardware than software.[25] --Dhartung | Talk 07:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I originally WP:PRODed it after failing to find any apropos use of the term on Google or Google Scholar. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: a combination of a common adjective with a gerund. Many things are "high frequency" and "computing," but as a single combined form, it does not denote anything with substantial usage: neologism. Utgard Loki (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (non-admin). Gary King (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gunter Teuffel[edit]

Questionable notability. Over 2400 Google hits, mostly related to downloads or viola performances, except for two websites from which article content is sourced (see talk page). I was going to nominate it for speedy deletion under CSD A7, but I wasn't sure whether or not the sentence "He got the 'Würdigungspreis des Österreichischen Ministeriums für Wissenschaft und Kultur'." was an attempt at indicating importance. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norbert Kaiser for a related discussion. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 01:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Another curriculum vitae entry. I'm sure he's an outstanding musician, and anyone achieving such a status is better than any of us will be, but every symphony has a principal soloist, and every orchestra has top flight people. Take all the symphonies and orchestras in the world, then take each member every year for the last 200 years, and you have such a pile of names with the same accomplishments that you have no meaning. No biography, no notability against the background of other top rank musicians. Utgard Loki (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if sourced. the principal chair in a notable orchestra is of course notable, so the question is whether this orchestra (SWR Radiosinfonieorchesters Stuttgart) is sufficiently important. (In fact, I'd say that being any regular member in a really major orchestra is notable. Its essentially the top of the profession), The number of such distinguished people is not a problem, if the articles can be written. One hundred orchestras times 100 musicians is a trivial amount of server space. We just need people to write the articles, --and of course, find at least basic sourcing--what we need to do is to get the interested people to write better articles. As for the academic side, it would depend on the importance of State University of Music and Performing Arts Stuttgart, which I think is very considerable indeed--considering it gives a doctorate. He is actually a professor there. [26] DGG (talk) 22:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notified the Classical Music wikiproject, as i am not an expert. DGG (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with DGG's assessment of Teuffel's notability. The article needs to be expanded (a proper lead would be a good start) and sourced; however, those shortcomings do not justify its deletion — SoFixIt instead. Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it appears that he is being singled out in reviews such as this one. There's a lot of German rsults in Google news which might be indicative of notability but I can't read German. -- Whpq (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of projects supported by George Soros[edit]

Article is basically a list of people/organizations a billionaire has given money to. From what I can tell, lists like these are not usually included, otherwise nearly every philanthropist would have a list as such. Also, the references are based mainly on one website. If any particular organizations are important I see no reason why they can't be included into the main article. Mønobi 01:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a section in George Soros, with more in-depth prose. —Animum (talk) 01:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is too large and stylistically awkward to merge to the main George Soros article, but is valid and valuable information that should be kept. I would like to see its scope clarified. ("Supported" how? Financially? Or is he just in favor of them?) Torc2 (talk) 02:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it necessary to keep a list of organizations that Soros gave money to? If some organization stands out, merge it by adding a paragraph about it. Mønobi 03:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Necessary" isn't a requirement for inclusion. Plenty of articles aren't "necessary", only notable enough for inclusion. Yes, I believe this list is notable enough for inclusion. Torc2 (talk) 09:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's sort of paranoid, but there are people who make a Very Big Deal out of the fact that George Soros is any part of the support of an organization. Other than his doppelganger Richard Mellon Scaife, I can't think of a philanthropist who has received equivalent scrutiny. We can definitely improve the scope and be more precise than it is, though. --Dhartung | Talk 05:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge back into main George Soros article. Beeblbrox (talk) 07:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable given the uniqueness of the subject; Soros underwrote a $20 million campaign to unseat a sitting US President and, having not done so, funded various surrogates and studies to undermine his policy, sometimes (or often?) on scientifically shaky grounds. I can't think of a philanthropist who is so often, or so willingly, at the eye of the left-right political storm. --Kallahan (talk) 11:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definite Keeper, this one jamesgibbon 12:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back: Why does this exist? It exists as a fork, and forking is a violation of the deletion guideline. Why would people want it: to target the man. Therefore, this combines two bad things. If the editors of the Soros article don't want it, then it can't be broken out. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "List of" articles are generally not considered forks. See WP:SPINOUT. Torc2 (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can appreciate the impulse to delete, but this is a well-cited list, and as pointed out by Torc2, it doesn't have to be vitally important to fall within Wikipedia's purview. Soros as a career philanthropist, this seems analogous to The Beatles discography or List of people pardoned by George W. Bush -- a list detailing the career accomplishments of a group or individual. Dylan (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though some internal organization would be helpful--the lists seem organized neither by date, alphabet, or function; it would also help if there was some indication of how complete the list is.DGG (talk) 04:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So do we have consensus that this should be kept? --Kallahan (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD debates usually remain open for at least 5 days, although I don't see a lot of support for deletion here. Beeblbrox (talk) 09:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per practically everything. Black Kite 16:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naru-Tard[edit]

Non-notable topic, no sources shown --Boss Big (talk) 01:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO, no sources seem to indicate that this term is used at all. Incidentally, I tried to nominate this for deletion at the same time you did! Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've heard this used many times and can vouch at least that it is indeed in use. However, the usage I hear most seems to differ from the one in the article: the article states that "narutards" are uber-serious purists... I've generally heard it to mean more casual fans, especially younger ones, who are very much into Naruto but know little else about anime, manga, or Japanese culture in general. In either case, it's a niche neologism, so delete per WP:NEO. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I too have heard it usually in the hyper young fans, contra the article. I can find all sorts of instances of use, but haven't seen it show up in fan glossaries or, heaven help us, linguist sites. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable neologism. For the record, I've seen (and used) it in both the context the article suggests and what Starblind describes. JuJube (talk) 02:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete for attack page, or delete as a neologism with such an amazingly small target application as to be impossible for wide usage. Having a "common" neologism for fans of a subculture's fraction is to say that one heard a name. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn neologism and WP:WINAD but I don't think it really is an attack page - firstly it describes itself as a detogatory term, it's not about any one particular person, and the suffix "-tard" is not derogatory in certain online communities.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We've deleted this before. This isn't a widely-used word outside of the Internet, so there's no way this would even have the coverage by reliable sources to meet WP:V. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Obvious offensive neologism. Zerokitsune (talk) 00:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NEO. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Starblind. Yes, it's definitely in currency among anime aficionados, but that argues for an entry in Wiktionary (if even that), not a Wikipedia term. This is no interesting theoretical or critical application for the term, like there is for other jargony terms like tsundere. --Gwern (contribs) 20:20 15 February 2008 (GMT)
Delete per WP:NEO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g5, banned user; g1, nonsense. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ned's Declassified Fairly Survivial Guide[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ned's Declassified Fairly Survivial Guide

Fictional series created by a known vandal, would put it up for speedy deletion but doesn't fit the criteria. treelo _talk 01:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax per nom. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as vandalism. User has been tagged as likely sock of User:Danny Daniel. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as vandalism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I went ahead and blocked the creator, whose only other edits were to add similar hoaxes. Sock or not, clearly not a good-faith user here to help us build an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CSD - CSD as per above comment --Boss Big (talk) 01:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Possible hoax or vandalism. Per discussion below. Malinaccier (talk) 00:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chronoi[edit]

Yet another hoax fictional element of a nonexistent anime series. --Farix (Talk) 01:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hoax page --Boss Big (talk) 01:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can find no evidence that the supposed series exists. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Quasirandom; no proof that series exists. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete people with Portuguese names don't make anime series. JuJube (talk) 03:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Definite hoax Canyouhearmenow 12:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion as vandalism. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Big Verdus[edit]

Pure hoax. --Farix (Talk) 01:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another non-notable/ hoax article --Boss Big (talk) 01:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I cannot find any evidence this supposed series exists. Which is a shame, as I'd LOVE to see an anime version of Love's Labor's Lost -- be even more of a hoot than Romeo x Juliet. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax per nom, no evidence that an anime adaptation of LLL existed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete people with Portuguese names don't make anime series. JuJube (talk) 03:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nonsense: a hoax is vandalism. Even if the darned thing were true, it would still be a delete, though, as it would be another of those "as mentioned in the background of a panel of a comic found only in issue #NN" sorts of things. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't quite that non-notable. More of a "secondary boss in a video game" sort of thing. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Little[edit]

Article does not assert notability. Google didn't turn up any sources, but there are many Paul Little's in the world, it seems. After deleting, move Paul Little (CEO) here. Lea (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Google turns up a fair amount, on one search string or another, on top of which he's been editor of two magazines with circulations in the tens of thousands. Turning this into a disambiguation page, with the subject moved to Paul Little (writer) might work. --Paularblaster (talk) 21:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see mostly articles he has written on Google, which doesn't make him notable. I don't know if having been the editor of two magazines makes him notable; I'd rather say not, but I'm not entirely sure. Did you find any third-party sources about him that might establish notability? -- Lea (talk) 04:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete needs references, third-party citations to verify standards of WP:BIO.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 06:33, 12 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, JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as editor of two major magazines, which I think barely meets WP:BIO for creative professionals. There is probably more written about him than is online. Absolutely move to Paul Little (writer) and make this a disambiguation page, although Paul Little (CEO) gets the lion's share of Google News Archive hits (roughly 1700 of 4200). That isn't a majority, though, and there's a large chunk of the globe in which he's a nobody. --Dhartung | Talk 05:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP - completely unsourced, and no assertion or proof of notability. Bearian (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable writer, unsourced; the mags he's edited do not qualify as "major" by any means, Dhartung. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Bearian.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge, NOT performed by the closing admin. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leo (mobile suit)[edit]

Lengthy in-universe discussion of the properties of fictional suits of armor. Seems to be a game guide of sorts. No outside sourcing demonstrating real-world notability. Midwest Peace (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no opinion one way or the other, but even a cursory look at the article indicates that it relates to a recurring adversary type in an anime TV series, not a game. Thus, it cannot be any sort of "game guide". --Ig8887 (talk) 03:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agreed -- it says anime in the first sentence. (What did you think that was?) It's definitely weak from the standpoint of WP:FICT, but I assume there are people out there who can judge how improvable it is better than I can. --Dhartung | Talk 05:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete single lengthy reference from a fansite isn't "significant coverage", hence article fails WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge so long as the references that Mythsearcher refers to are present in the merged entry. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Again, "as seen in." Well, there are many things to be invented by people paid to add details to commercial fiction, and there are even more things invented by fans with imagination. If this is not critical, then it is unimportant, and if it is a detail in a fiction, then we're way past inclusion. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep/merge According to talk page: "This article was nominated for deletion on 30 Jan 2007. The result of the discussion was merge and redirect to List of Mobile Suits of Gundam Wing." -Verdatum (talk) 16:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Update, looking at histories, a Template:mergeto tag was added to the article. For some reason it was merged very briefly but then undone. I've made inquiries as to why this was, but have yet to see a response. I suspect it was just a simple oversight. Once the AfD closes, I can do the merge if as the original closer suggested, "editors experienced with this topic should do the actual merge". FYI, Similar issue with Virgo (mobile suit). -Verdatum (talk) 15:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, tag for cleanup, possibly merge Nom did not read the article. No policies are cited as a reason for deletion. Claims of a lack of sources and references are false as can be discovered with a rudimentary examination of the article. This needs a bit of work, but it's hardly unsalvageable (at worst it can be merged into the various "List of" articles that WP:Gundam uses for things not noteable enough for their own article. I should further note that this AfD is miscategorized (it should be under Fiction and the arts rather than Games and Sports)Jtrainor (talk) 12:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the nominator may not have cited a policy, but the article doesn't meet WP:N or WP:FICT, and doesn't have any other assertion of notability - so it's still correct to delete it. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment this editor should refrain from such violations of WP:AGF by retracting the statement "Nom did not read the article."GundamsRus (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:AGF specifically says that it does not mean other editors are immune to criticism. When the nominator decribes something as a 'game guide' when it's clearly mentioned as part of an anime is clear indication that the nominator either did not read or did not understand the article. Edward321 (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not retracting anything. And I'm not going to do anything a sockpuppet asks me to, either. Jtrainor (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, guys, would it help if I apologized? I didn't comprehend what the article was about, but I knew it wasn't appropriate for Wikipedia. Midwest Peace (talk) 11:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. There are a few articles that got recreated with the same content after merging. Like the AGX-04 Gerbera Tetra and White Base which I figured some new comer or anon account accursed me of eating the whole article without permission. Just merge it per the consensus here into the list, forget about the AfD process. Also, people here who voted or is about to vote a delete because it is fictional material should get themselves familiar with this page and the Approach section of this page. MythSearcher^talk 15:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there's a difference between deleting because it's fiction, and deleting because it's fiction without coverage. This is the latter. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I understand that, but as a matter of practice, there are a lot of people from previous AfDs who fail to see the difference. You are obviously not the case but it is always good to remind people of it before things get ugly. I will change my word to reflect this. MythSearcher^talk 15:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply fair enough. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Finish the job from the last AfD. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per the last Afd. Edward321 (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge per Mythsearcher. Haven't we done this before? MalikCarr (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to the people voting "same as before" - I'd remind them that that isn't a strong argument (see WP:NOTAGAIN) and ask them whether they think that multiple secondary sources could be found to support the suit's inclusion in wikipedia, here or on a merged list. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Super Robot Wars could be a secondary source, since it is not from the same company, yet they got a short description of the units included within the game. As for primary sources, I would suggest the official site. MythSearcher^talk 16:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply a game which features the suit would be a primary source, and notability requires multiple secondary sources. Mecha Anime HQ looks like one; are there more? Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply a game that features units from multiple anime, games and manga with a mecha encyclopedia that states the origin of each unit is secondary. The secondary part comes from the fact that it states the origin of the unit from an out of game perspective, like in this case, the entry of the this Leo unit states that its appearance is from Mobile Suit Gundam Wing. Also, it is by Banpresto, not Sunrise. They need to get copyright permissions from other companies to add units into the game. MAHQ is always quoted as not being a reliable source since it is a fan site, although the same info could be sourced from primary sources like the official web site and MS encyclopedia, somehow people still don't take MAHQ as a WP:RS. MythSearcher^talk 07:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Reply I think I see. How much secondary coverage does the game devote to the suit? Is it just listing where it's from, or is there more? Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply It lists the origin of the unit with a short description. Usually the description contains a little of what it does in the original story(For example, Leo is a grunt unit) and a little plot summary. For a more important unit(like one piloted by a main character), the description will usually be longer. MythSearcher^talk 13:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply OK. Sounds borderline for an article, but sufficient for a minor topics list entry. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I don't believe WP:NOTAGAIN completely applies here. A ruling was made and it just wasn't carried out; it was an oversite. Granted concensus can change and the articles may have changed. But I believe it would be better to merge the article, and then ask if the list of mobile suits belongs. (Personally, I believe it does due to the recent changes of WP:FICT allowing summary style articles to extend a main article.) But again, I feel it is beyond the scope of this discussion. -Verdatum (talk) 14:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chanelle Hayes[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)).

personaly i dont see why she is famous to be included in this siet, all she is is some small time tv job — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charley Uchea (talk • contribs) 00:44, 13 February 2008

Keep I hadn't heard of her, but Google News brings a huge number of results for her, including a number of pretty clearly reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment, if you have never heard of her, then why r u nominating this as a keep, no wonder this site is full of junk bits that needs deleting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charley Uchea (talk • contribs) 01:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment since when is a particular editor's having heard of the subject a keep/delete criteria? A keep vote is proper when there are reliable sources, as here, whether or not you've heard of her. I've never heard of her either, but am voting keep for the same reason. - superβεεcat 03:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep per above - superβεεcat 03:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has turned reality TV notability into general notability. matt91486 (talk) 04:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability demonstrated. I suggest the nominator read WP:BIO again -- or User:Uncle G/On notability if he hasn't seen it. --Dhartung | Talk 05:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Already sports a few reliable sources as references, looks like a decent enough stub to me; a search seems to indicate that more could easily be added. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 06:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to have established a sufficiently notable career. Maxa megalon 2000 06:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above Canyouhearmenow 12:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Utter ephemera, but keep for fame. I only wish we had a way to automatically clean up after these people go back to leading genuine life. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as more notable than most reality TV stars. I mean, after all the she was in the Daily Star newspaper last summer... which would make her no more notable than Corey Delaney, wouldn't it? No seriously, I think the work in TV she's done justabout clinches it, but it's interesting... there's plenty of information for people like Jack Tweed in tabloid newspapers to write an article with, but it's gossip by and large. I find it controversial that people can reject tabloid newspapers under WP:RS, anyway. I'll stop with the WP:WAX right now anyway.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete, same notability as other reality TV star, she does what all other reality TV stars do typically - minor apppearance on TV shows, keep fit videos, semi-naked calendar shoot, have a own perfume line to be launched before Christmas which will be sold for a pound at Poundland, name a female reality TV contestant who dosen't do any one of these. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty who don't. Most female Big Brother contestants haven't even gone as far as to do that.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She does what Jade Goody does, launches a cheap perfume; she does what all other female reality TV contestants do, semi-naked photoshoot; she does what all other reality TV contestants do, appear on TV even if she appears as a guest; not to mention that does she present these following shows...This Morning, Celebrity Scissorhands and Ready Steady Cook. I wish people stop using appearances as a guest or interviewee to claim notability, to make my point forward, has anybody who appeared on The Jeremy Kyle Show ever became notable. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

agreed that this is not important in any ultimate perspective, but what does that have to do with notability, as presently defined? DGG (talk) 05:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

some are forgetting or are not informed (try reading the stub) that Chanelle has now got a regular presenting role on TV, after being a Judge on the show Wannabe, not being a guest on TV, which she has done many times but actually co-presenting the show. As well as this she has created a notable impact on in the mags/papers this past year, outdoing even more established models/personalities to merit her own page here.Nightfactoy (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Chanelle Hayes has achieved sufficient notability to be on Wikipedia, from Wednesday 20th is Presenting on Nuts TV every week, having previously Judged on the Show "Wannabe". She is a regular model for numerous papers and magazines. A new and rising star in the media. She has broken quickly out of the Reality TV mould and has become a popular personality on TV and in the papers/magazines. She is also on the top list of most searched for on msn and Google. Nightfactoy (talk) 16:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightfactoy (talk • contribs) 22:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep she's a rising star, lots of work since she left BB and is going to do plenty in the future— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sally50 (talk • contribs)

— Sally50 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep Chanelle is unusual for an ex-reality TV star because she has made a lucrative career for herself at a level previously unheard of for a "walker." She has been voted Favorite Big Brother Housemate Ever by the members of Digital Spy and by the readers of the Daily Star. She starred in a six-part VH1 series in the UK and is about to start co-presenting a prime-time show on Nuts TV in the UK. She has been on dozens of magazine covers and has been featured in many interviews, fashion spreads, and glamour photoshoots. She was voted #1 Newcomer of 2007 by the readers of Star Magazine, and she was also voted the #1 Favourite Reality TV Star of 2007.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.167.118 (talk • contribs)

— 86.43.167.118 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep Chanelle has been constantly in the media for the past seven months, and has just landed a regular TV presenting job. She also has her own calendar and perfume. To delete this entry now seems very odd.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Conorob123 (talk • contribs)

— Conorob123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep Chanelle Hayes has emerged as a regular model for a leading newspaper, has featured in many magazines and more recently had been featured on several TV shows. She is a young woman who displays many fine personality traits including loyalty, honesty and modesty. She is a fine role model for the younger generation and someone who has somehow managed to keep her feet on the ground despite her successes. I have no doubts that over then next year or two she will progress even further into other media circles. For these reasons she should maintain her place in this auspicious reference web-site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoanneW100 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— JoanneW100 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

comment Why has my request to Keep the entry been crossed out. Although I have only just joined as a member I frequently use Wikipedia as a reference tool and I don't understand why I am not allowed to have an opinion on this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoanneW100 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She speaks spanish, plays the violin,and is doing well in the media, she is on the up so to delete seem a little odd. a ex BB who has talent thats not someting you hear of every day— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sally50 (talk • contribs)
Comment Second vote for this SPA. Pairadox (talk) 11:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keepChanelle has now become a successful model since leaving the bb house & is just about to embark on becoming a regular presenter on Nuts TV. She appears in a national newspaper on a regular basis & is their top voted model,also has 2nd & 4th places in their search site. Also voted most popular BB star on Digital spy & Bigbrotheronline. Also judged on the Wannabe series on VH1 & is due to film a follow up show. why delete success ??— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmilly (talk • contribs)

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

Keep Chanelle Hayes is a 20 yo who in the last 6 -8 months has become established a model who is in constant demand. It is rare that she does not appear in one or more UK national newspapers together with copy which frequently draws attention to her anticipation of forthcoming fashion trends. She has developed her own brand of perfume, MWAH, which she marketed successfully. She also produced and successfully marketed her calendar. In addition she has presented a television series 'Wannabe', which involve her travelling the country with recognosed personalities from the recording and related industry to select women to form and over 25's women singing group. She has appeared on several other Tv shows as a participant, guest and on several occasions as presenter. In February 2008 she Chanelle Hayes is wortking on other projects yet to be disclosed for this year. The steady increase of this young woman's popularity in a very short time together with her considerable potential make it highly likely that her celebrity status will significantly increase in the coming year.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mykier (talk • contribs)

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

Keep Chanelle is to become a regular presenter on the Nuts TV channel, and is likely to go on to have a successful career in the media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianbaxter43 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Ianbaxter43 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. Article is sourced and she seems notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster (talk) 02:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.This is a young lady who is going far and is making a big splash in the TV and fashion arena there have also been rumours of an up and coming singing career add to this her Myspace friends have steadily increased to over 20,000 at the time of writing so in short we have a well known and admired young celebrity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belguim (talk • contribs) 10:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Since walking from the Big Brother house on Day 62, Chanelle Hayes has been voted Favourite UK Big Brother Housemate of alltime by Digital Spy Forum in 2007 and was also voted Sexiest housemate of all time by Thisisbigbrother.com in 2007. Thus, Chanelle Hayes will always be recognised in UK Big Brother history. Chanelle Hayes has since been a regular on our screens, the series "Wannabe with Chanelle" for VH1 just one notable example and has graced the magazines and UK press ever since her appearance on Big Brother UK and to present day. Chanelle Hayes also is now a regular presenter on NUTS TV, a Freeview, Sky and Virgin channel owned by IPC and Turner Broadcasting which are part of the AOL Time Warner media Empire. Chanelle Hayes was also included in Top 10 reality TV Star searches for 2007 and Top 100 celebrity searches for 2007 on various search engine websites.Chanelle Hayes also launched her own perfume "Mwah" and Calendar for 2008. This is a woman who will be going from strength to strength in 2008, I have no doubtAnneHathawaySUA (talk) 10:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Chanelle Hayes deserves her page, she has earned her page and wikidpedia needs her page. Since she came onto our screens last year she has been constantly in the headlines and constantly in the public eye. So far she has been in her own TV programme, Wanabee, launched her 2008 calendar and has designed and put her name to a perfume which is selling well. Voted the most popular housemate ever in 2007 by Digital Spy forums, Chanelle is soon to be presenting on Nuts tv, is a regular in the media and is currently planning her calendar for 2009 as well as several other projects this year. Chanelle isnt fading away, nor should her page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sue1012 (talk • contribs)

— Sue1012 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

comment Surely it is OK for people to give their comments. Why is it different if they haven't commented elsewhere also? What relevance does that have on the current topic in this page? None really. So why go around trying to stop people posting their genuine comments with all these "no other edits outside topic" comments? Is Wickipedia only open to a small band of commenter's who have also commented on other, unrelated pages? How silly is this process if that is the case. Don't we want a genuine reflection of the popularity and status of this page? Aren't all views allowed? Can you remove these "no other edits" tags please or give a genuine explanation for them being here as I can't find one.Nightfactoy (talk) 15:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightfactoy (talk • contribs) 14:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Chanelle is doing well for herself with the jobs she has done in the past year. She's widely known which can be judged by the number of websites she's on and lastly many young girls see her as a role model for the way she has conducted herself so far and has won many acolades. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwo08 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Kwo08 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

keep;this page need a fresh face,someone new,talented&pretty,she entertaind us on bb,she's still a hot media topic and will be for a long time to come— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.83.118.161 (talk • contribs)

— 81.83.118.161 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep as appears to be doing well for herself aside from her appearance on a reality telly programme. -- Roleplayer (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable as some non-winners such as Helen Adams, Nikki Graham and so on, also if notable is continiously being on the spotlight, then she is —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metallicash (talk • contribs) 01:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

The result was Keep. The advertising content has been removed & external coverage has been added. — Scientizzle 17:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Core FTP[edit]

FTP client software. No indication of notability whatsoever. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 00:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam. KurtRaschke (talk) 01:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 03:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added two reviews as references (which should demonstrate notability) and tagged the article as ((Software-stub)). --Eastmain (talk) 03:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not written like adcopy, easy to find notable sources online - superβεεcat 03:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Covered in at least two reliable third-party sources (per Eastmain), I'd say that's good enough for a keep. -FrankTobia (talk) 14:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per CSD G11. Article has no content beyond advertising the product. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It gives the price, and it tells you how to buy. It is, in short and sum, an ad. The product doesn't seem to be above or beyond other FTP clients. I'm sure it's good, and if ftp were still a core activity on the Internet, I might look into it, but this is an ad, and Wikipedia does not allow advertising. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - That information has since been deleted. The article no longer looks like an ad, IMO. -FrankTobia (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and now it has no content. How's that encyclopedic? If there's nothing verifiable and notable to say about this product, why is it here? That's what's behind my delete Travellingcari (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete there are only two lines on this page. Gman124 (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it may not be written like an ad copy, but that's what it is. It's to sell the product, not talk about why it's encyclopedic. I didn't find anything in the references to indicate its notability either. Travellingcari (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hello, I'm trying to replace our wikipedia page that was maliciously deleted (likely by a competitor). I'm new to the whole wikipedia process and apologise for any mistakes I have made. I will do my best to restore the page to whomever wrote the original page which was much more complete. --phillipsc (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Articles are deleted by administrators, not your "competitors". This is a very serious charge of conflict of interest you are raising against Wafulz (talk · contribs). Do you have any evidence? According to the log, the article had "no indication of notability whatsoever". What evidence of notability was supplied in the Wikipedia article on your company, which by the way, is not "yours"? --Dhartung | Talk 20:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again my apologies if I've done something wrong. I did not mean to accuse any one individual of malice, but rather I found it disturbing that out of several clients listed on the Comparison of FTP clients page, The Core FTP link was chosen to be removed (out of 50,60 or more clients). A majority of clients on that page don't have at least 5 million downloads and/or have been discontinued or don't have a significant presence in the FTP arena. Not only did someone remove the Core FTP client page, but they went through the trouble of removing it from the FTP client comparison page. I hope you can understand my frustration. --phillipsc | Talk 20:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Then I hope you will understand OUR frustration in handling articles that do not have appropriate references. We don't care about whether there are other articles of dubious sourcing or how many downloads; we care whether we have sources that verify the notability of the program according to our pre-existing standards. We don't really check the rest of the category to see if we're being fair. --Dhartung | Talk 06:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. Needed for balance of comparison with comparable software. Snowman (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks context to establish its claim as notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. Snowman, an article does not arrive at notability for the sake of providing readers with comparisons to other software products; Wikipedia is not a product review; we are not Consumer Reports.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 04:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Schertzer[edit]

Delete so we've had a go where some think that mayors of any city with more than 50,000 people are inherently notable, how about 35,000? I don't think so, and this unsourced substub multiplied by thousands is the likely result of relaxing notability standards - we have no clue where or when this guy was born, what party he is in, what his policies are, whether he has much power or the city council wields the lions share - nada, zilch. Great encyclopedia article, huh? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete or Make Stub 99.239.190.195 (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Make Stub Warrior4321^talkContribs 00:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. If we are wrong, the article can be created anew; the 24 words that make up the current article won't be too big a loss to humanity. Midwest Peace (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have labelled the article as a stub, and added two references. Regardless of the size of Marion's population, the article now passes the primary notability criterion: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." --Eastmain (talk) 01:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LOCAL. This is far below WP:BIO and below my personal recommended standard for mayors of cities 100,000 and up. --Dhartung | Talk 05:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Mayors get elected every 2-4 years, and they have been elected for hundreds of years, and trying to note each and every one is absolutely not appropriate. This is especially true since a biography is supposed to be a biography, not an index entry, and it is supposed to be a biography of a person who has set himself or herself apart from the 6 billion others. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:LOCAL. A couple of local references is not sufficient. An article about the city might mention the present mayor. I cannot see the point of hundreds of thousands of potential articles about every person who was ever the mayor of a small town and got his name in the newspaper a couple of times, since notability is permanent, and any mayor of any town probably got into the local newspaper at least as many times as this fellow did, or the paper wasn't doing its job. As an example, I can go to Newspaperarchive.com, select any small town, and voila I can find a dozen refs to Mayor H.W. Lander of Beaver Dam, Wisconsin in the 1860's (population then under 3,000) in the Beaver Dam newspaper. He got elected, inaugurated, made speeches, signed laws, and once his horse bolted and the carriage overturned, etc. Multiply by hundreds of thousands of small towns worldwide and a new mayor every few years throughout its history. I cannot see why perfunctory coverage of a local official in a local paper satisfies WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously an individual mayor of even a very small town can be notable in some special circumstances, but in general this won't be the case. We can argue each one, or use a cutoff. We can each pick a number, or go with authority: In the contemporary US, the Census Bureau defines an Urban area with a population of at least 50,000 as able to serve as the core of a metropolitan statistical area, cf. List of United States urban areas that's not exactly the same as city, but its an official number of about the right magnitude. Personally, I'd have gone with Dhartung's number, or higher--the top 100 in the US comes to 300,000 population, but I think the census Bureau can do the deciding. The number might be different in other countries and other periods, if populations are larger or smaller. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Birdhuman[edit]

No independent notability or real-world context established. Might be worth a merge to Macross Zero. Torc2 (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or merge to Macross Zero); no evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 00:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 00:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Is there going to be an article for the pencil "seen in" a show, too? What about the sneakers "seen in" it? What about the.... I understand the fan's impulse, but it is better satisfied at a web forum or a web site devoted to the subject. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deletion - Acroterion _(talk) 02:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Magsmum[edit]

It seems to be about a biography that is not notable. Thebluesharpdude (talk) 02:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, notability not asserted by any means. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:21, 12 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.