< March 22	March 24 >

Guide to deletion

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

The result was Keep based on the vast improvements in the article, the inherent notability of an airline company, the adoption by the Aviation wikiproject, and the much improved sourcing in the article. Great example of the WP:HEY standard. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Salt Spring Air[edit]

Non-notable company. Brianga (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article consists mostly of original research. The sole source cited contains only a passing mention of the company. There is currently no independent, signficant coverage to demonstrate notability. Nick Graves (talk) 02:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Small airline is not notable, its company website is a blog on worldpress. AlbinoFerret (talk) 05:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable and almost not sources Think outside the box 20:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very insulting that they didn't even try to Wikify it. House of Scandal (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Failure to wikify is not a criterion for deletion, but a reason for improvement. I don't think insult was intended by this failure to wikify--it's a likely result of just being new and not being familiar with how the markup works. Do you care to cite another rationale for deletion--one that's based on a policy or guideline? Like, say, lack of notability? Nick Graves (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: In response to the above points, firstly sorry I am new to wiki be assured no insult was meant, and thank you to whom ever it was that helped by wikifying my page. I have added some more references and will continue to do so, the company is set to be in the news again this week. Salt Spring Air is pretty notable, maybe it is just that I have not added enough data, I will work on that. Any tips are welcome and will be acted on. the company has a full web site at www.saltspringair.com i used the blog site as it is growing in content quicker and has some cool photos on it. So can I stay, for now? --Flymebc (talk) 04:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response: I recommend taking a look at the following policies or guidelines: Reliable sources, Conflict of interest, Original research and Notability (organizations and companies). There are currently two "References" sections in the article. The first consists of links to Wikipedia articles, which are not reliable sources for an article. The second References section lists an IMDb page, which is also not a reliable source. The other two articles are reliable sources, but they do not provide significant coverage of the subject. They're not enough to establish notability by Wikipedia standards. "Notability" in general is very relative, and your company might very well be notable within a certain locality and in certain people's minds, but "notability" within the Wikipedia context has a very specific definition, and the company does not yet meet that definition. I presume you are the proprieter of this company, or at least work for it, so you should review Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest. It's usually not a good idea to edit or start an article about a company you own or work for, since this can lead to articles becoming advertisements, violations of neutrality policy, or a temptation to view the subject as more notable than it actually is (by Wikipedia standards), thus creating an article that doesn't really belong here. Finally, the article contains information that is not confirmed by the two reliable sources cited. Perhaps you know this information personally, but without a reputably published source to back it up, it shouldn't be included in the article. That's original research, which is prohibited on Wikipedia. More data and pictures won't save this article--proof that it is notable (significant coverage in multiple, reliable, secondary sources) is the only thing that can do that. As for the wikification issue, you can learn by clicking "edit" on certain articles just to take a look at what the markup looks like (do not use real articles, however, to test things out). You can then go to the sandbox and do some experiments to get familiar with how editing using this markup works. Nick Graves (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I hope you don't bite with too many assumptions by saying "your company". --Der yck C. 15:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: thank you for the feedback, I have read through your response, and I am currently playing around in the sand box to pick up some wiki skills. I am not the proprietor or an employee of the company, my interest started because I can see the float planes landing form my window, I have (it’s a small island) got to know the owner and the company. Hence the pet project. I can see that being an acquantance of the owner may be on the fringe of the wiki conflict rule, but on an island this size the most knowledgeable about any island subject is probably somebody form the community. I understand more pictures and data won’t be the saving grace, but new/more articles may be. Salt Spring Air is being honoured with a life savers award this Friday and that is to be picked up by TV and Print media, Salt spring Air’s planes are pretty famous they have each been involved in block buster movies starring Nicholas Cage and Al Pacino (not both in the same movie) I am digging out the reference to those now. In the interest of trying to improve the article enough, could anybody point out the difference between it and say other companies in the same field i.e. Harbour Air--Flymebc (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Response: Certainly, members of the community will have a lot of knowledge about such a company, but again, all information in a Wikipedia article must be supported with reliable, published sources to avoid crossing into Original research. Even if you personally know something to be true, you must be able to point to an article in a reliable newspaper, magazine, book, website, etc. to put such information in an article. You would get a long way toward proving notability for the company if you could find at least one reliable, secondary source that has an article specifically dedicated to covering it. While you search for that, you might consider "userfying" the article you created in case it gets deleted. Check out this article to see how that can be done. That way, you can restore the article once you've proven notability (though I would consult with the closing admin before doing that). As for Harbour Air, I'm of the opinion that notability has not been proven for that company either. It cites 3 sources, 1 of which doesn't have anything to do with the company, and two of which are actually the company's own website. You'll find that a lot of articles "slip through the cracks" and aren't up to policy or guidelines. That still doesn't excuse other articles when an editor brings up a legitimate criticism and asks for either proof of notability or article deletion. I would note, however, that Harbour Air is (according to its own website) the "World's Largest All-Seaplane Airline," which, if supported by independent coverage, would be a fact supporting its notability. Nick Graves (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - i have added more data and links in the reference section, including an article that appeared yesterday. i have more coming from the vancouver press hopefully this weekend--Flymebc (talk) 01:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, tends towards provisional keep - This case is a marginal one. Notability should be credited given that the company is an airline. Everyone can start a random company but unless they get rich enough there couldn't be an airline. (The airline code system tells us that the number of airlines in the world shouldn't exceed far beyond 1000.) And consider fleet sizes - Oasis Hong Kong Airlines had only 2 planes at launch and was yet notably big news. (at least its article stayed.) This airline has 4. Considering that the article is also in its infancy (less than 10 days) and the principal contributor is a newbie, failure to wikify is not at all a reason for deletion. I think we should give some time for this article to develop, maybe a month, before we rethink deletion. I suggest that this case should be concluded as "kept no consensus". --Der yck C. 15:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further information - Two out of the three other airlines that operate parallel to Salt Spring Air - West Coast Air and Harbour Air, both operating primarily seaplanes, have their articles. I suppose a bit of parallel ruling should apply here? --Der yck C. 16:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The primary concern here has not been lack of wikification (which has since been corrected), but whether this company is notable or not. Notability is established by signficant coverage of the subject in multiple, independent and reliable sources. None of the sources cited give anything close to significant coverage of the subject. It does not matter that other, similar companies also have articles on Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Other stuff exists)--notability must be decided on the merits of the coverage in the sources cited for the article. Also, whether or not one calls this company an "airline" has no bearing on its level of notability--again, that depends entirely on what sort of coverage is found in reliable sources. I agree that it is important not to bite newcomers, which is why I've strongly suggested userfying the article to preserve this editor's work, have given suggestions for improvement and sourcing, have helped wikify, and have reproduced the article at Wikinfo. However, the need to be welcoming does not mean that notability guidelines ought to be disregarded. There is ample opportunity for restoration of this article if its creator is able to prove notability at a later date. At present, however, this is a clear-cut case of an article's subject failing WP:CORP. Finally, I would like to point out that the fact that this company has a fleet of only 4 planes is pretty strong support for a presumption of non-notability. Nick Graves (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Please point out how the website of the transport department of Canada (footnote 3) and an independent tourism review website about Salt Spring Island (footnote 2) fail to serve as independent reliable sources. In addition, I appreciate your skepticism that a fleet of only four planes supports a presumption of non-notability (and therefore I appreciate the presence of this debate); however, that cannot disprove notability. (again refer to Oasis Hong Kong as a counterexample) --Der yck C. 04:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Sure, that source is independent and reliable. But it is not significant coverage--it does not go into any depth about the company. So far, all the sources cited just have bits and pieces about the company. Signficant coverage is needed to prove notability. As I've said to Fly before, a trade magazine that dedicates a whole article to this company would go a long way toward demonstrating notability--that would be signficant coverage. The burden of proof is on those who seek to demonstrate notability, not on those who challenge the claim of notability. Nick Graves (talk) 11:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Look at the article now. It has been adopted by WP:AVIATION as an Airlines article and much improved in the past week. Let the infant grow. -Canglesea (talk) 15:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --jonny-m t 14:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My December (song)[edit]

Non-notable, non-charting song with little or no media coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC#Songs. Previous attempts to redirect to Linkin Park have been reverted. Precious Roy (talk) 23:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:Music#Songs. The sole source cited is a fansite--no significant coverage in reliable sources is referenced. Nick Graves (talk) 02:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do remember this song getting regular airplay on my local alternative station. Some of these articles -especially the first- should establish notability. Zagalejo^^^ 05:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Airplay is not enough—it has to chart nationally. And except for the first (short) article, the rest seem to be just trivial mentions of the song (mostly just listing the title). Precious Roy (talk) 09:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Roy is correct. Zagelejo has found some very minimal coverage, which is not enough to establish notability. The verifiable information found in those sources is not enough to warrant an article separate from Linkin Park discography or an individual album article. Songs should chart nationally, win a significant award, or be covered by several notable artists to be notable. And, to quote the relevant policy: "A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; permanent stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Nick Graves (talk) 12:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's nothing wrong with the article if you ask me --Wellwater Conspiracy (talk) 11:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Roy and I have pointed out a specific ~~policy~~ [guideline] that indicates that there is something wrong with having the article. Can you explain how you think this ~~policy~~ [guideline] is not applicable in this case, or point to a different ~~policy~~ [guideline or policy] that trumps this argument? Nick Graves (talk) 12:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:Music is not a policy, it's a guideline. In any case, I think the song passes that guideline: it has "been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups." Linkin Park and Josh Groban are hugely notable, plus there have been a couple of remixes which have brought in other artists. Zagalejo^^^ 17:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Granted, it is a guideline, and does not have the same weight as an official policy. However, this guideline does have widespread consensus behind it, which is weightier than a "keep" recommendation that goes no further than "I don't think there's anything wrong with this article." Of course the song has been performed by Linkin Park--it's their song. Beyond that, we have confirmation that Josh Groban made a remix. I'd say that falls far short of the "several notable artists" performing the song independently that is required to establish notability. You mention that others have made remixes. Who are they? Are they notable? Can this be confirmed in reliable sources? I will note also that the article still does not cite any reliable sources to back up any of its claims (a fansite doesn't qualify). You've found two articles (from the Denver Post and the LA Times) that get us closer to establishing notability, but it's still not enough. What else is out there, and is it enough information to justify a separate article? Nick Graves (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, I've looked where I can, and I can't find much else. It's possible that a music magazine has written something about this song, but only a handful of magazines are electronically archived in the same manner as newspapers, so I can't say anything for sure at the moment. As for the remixes, it seems that the one I had in mind has never actually been released, so I'll just drop that line of argument.
      - I still think we could cull a couple of paragraphs out of the sources that do exist, so I'm still in favor of keeping this article. At the very least, we should merge this information somewhere - and that precludes deletion, since we'd still use this as a redirect. Zagalejo^^^ 22:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A good but otherwise non-notable song. Not a major single, barely charting on some local stations. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 02:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep (no consensus) - Nabla (talk) 12:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Script (the band)[edit]

I declined an A7 speedy on this because there is an assertion of notability ("The recent hit 'We Cry' received single of the week on Today FM and on BBC Radio 1"), however without references this completely fails WP:MUSIC. Recommend deletion. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—The page is one day old. I suggest inserting a notability template instead and give the editors time to build a proper page.—RJH (talk) 16:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A reference has been added, making it pass WP:MUSIC. Save-Me-Oprah^(talk) 21:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Generally, if a band hasn't released a single record, they have no shot of passing WP:BAND. The source cited is the band's record label; of course, to establish notability a source must be independent of the subject, which isn't the case here. This band simply isn't notable by Wikipedia's standards, at least not yet. faithless (^speak) 07:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep The claim of notability which is now sourced appears to be a good reason to keep although I don't think it technically meets the requirements of WP:BAND. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – A very new band that does not need an article yet, but it has one. –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The article appears to be notable; however, it fails WP:BAND. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. --jonny-m t 14:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vlad (musician)[edit]

Non-notable artist Momusufan (talk) 23:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to have released two albums on a notable indie label, Orpheus Music, per WP:MUSIC. I note also that the nom nominated this for deletion within FOUR minutes of the article being created[1], which is way too quick imo. Tag it up and give it longer. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If sources can be found. Maybe I jumped the gun a little bit, but I'd keep and find sources. Momusufan (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Does that mean you are withdrawing the nomination for deletion? -- Whpq (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I take it to be a conditional withdraw pending addition of RS. SingCal 07:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --jonny-m t 14:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wiij[edit]

Speedy delete. No assertion of notability. Much of the information isn't sourced. It just seems to be about a way to hack Wiis, and a lot of it comes off as NPOV (such as "WiiJ-ing, apart from being an innovative and entertaining new form of DJ, is being heralded for its wholly wireless usage.." CyberGhostface (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Better attempt than many, however. - House of Scandal (talk) 17:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 05:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ba Sing Se[edit]

The result was Merge. (Please note article was closed by nominator due to suggestion by User:Hobit.) — Parent5446 ^{(t n c e m l)} 02:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is all plot summary. It treats the place as if it was a real location. There is no actual point to the article but to speculate about what the place was like in the show. In other words, it is all in-universe, and there is no possible way to come up with out-of-universe info. The best way to go for this article is to trim it down and merge it into Earth Kingdom. It does not deserve its own multi-sectioned article. — Parent5446 ^{(t n c e m l)} 23:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —— Parent5446 ^{(t n c e m l)} 23:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if you think it should be merged, it probably isn't for AfD. Be bold and merge. Hobit (talk) 01:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. faithless (^speak) 07:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portal (band)[edit]

Mostly redlinks, no notable songs or albums, article reads like an advertisement. There are no references, and I have done a search and can not find anything online about this band Izzy007 Talk 22:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on their own MySpace page they have no label and market their own albums. Nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't meet WP:BAND. The article claims they won an college battle of the bands. That doesn't help WP:BAND either. IrishGuy ^talk 23:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable band that fails WP:MUSIC Lugnuts (talk) 09:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 18:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shoes.co.uk[edit]

Seems to be advertising for a recently established non-notable web retailer. A query on Alexa [2] indicates that the website shoes.co.uk has extremely low traffic and it is not among the top 100,000. Cambrasa (talk) 22:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing substantial in Google News Archive (some hits for vegetarian-shoes.co.uk, just to confuse things). Hilariously, despite that it's their brand fpetesake, shoes.co.uk isn't even configured (www.shoes.co.uk is). Not promising. --Dhartung | Talk 00:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete' as advertisement and nothing more. House of Scandal (talk) 13:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as advert Think outside the box 20:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. If someone wants to transwiki the content, please let me know and I will provide the text and history. --jonny-m t 14:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn of War Units, Buildings, Upgrades, and Abilities[edit]

Wikipedia is not a gamefaq, similar pages have already been deleted in the past (pretty much for every popular videogame out there), also there is already a Dawn of War wiki: [3] Kessingler (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT#MANUAL Cambrasa (talk) 00:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a game guide -- Whpq (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~Fancruft~~. Also, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Age of Empires III military units & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buildings of Age of Empires III, 2 similiar debates, have had as a result "delete"; so I suppose that the result should be the same here. ♠TomasBat 21:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 05:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Not a game guide, and "fancruft" is never an appropriate reason for deleting an article. MalikCarr (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag for cleanup The article's brand new. Give it a little time-- we don't have deadlines around here. Assertions of cruft violate WP:AGF and should be discounted. Jtrainor (talk) 03:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and delete in-depth list which gives undue weight to individual minor aspects of gameplay, WP is not GameFAQs [4]. Belongs on strategywiki, encyclopedia gamia or a Warhammer wiki where it can continue to be developed. Someone another 10:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Wizardman 01:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indt2.sys[edit]

Non notable malward file. Original research, violation of WP:NOT. J Milburn (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems to be WP:OR. The file does appear to be malware but so are a lot of programs. Fails WP:SOFTWARE. --Dhartung | Talk 00:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete by me, A7, again. J Milburn (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BLADEWiki[edit]

been speedy deleted a few times now under CSD A7 (Web) ninety:one 22:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 09:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bypin[edit]

In its first version this was a dicdef and given a PROD as such. It has now expanded to be a story about a song by Niall Quinn, and its performance in Trafalgar Square on St Patrick's day, and a word arising from it. The problem is that the source given is about St Patrick's day but does not mention Mr Quinn's performance, and a search for "Niall Quinn bypin" produces nothing. Delete as not notable because no sources. JohnCD (talk) 22:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nominator. (note: that search currently shows.... WP's article and this discussion. Only.) - Nabla (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is highly debatable that the article's content is factual. –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. John254 23:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon Diamond And Pearl Cards[edit]

Wikipedia is not a list, directory, source of original research or a crystal ball. This article covers all of these, and also contains unnecessary information (as such information can be found in the right places, such as Bulbapedia, and much better quality). Cipher ^(Talk) 21:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a hugely popular subject, as can been seen by the large number of edits to the article in recent months, as well as the thousands of Google hits it gets. Surely these two factors make the subject a notable topic for Wikipedia? Having said that, it could really do with a very good clean up. --Seahamlass (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a Pokemon person, but there seem to be plenty of relevant sources

Keep - given the huge number of articles on minor anime and so forth, this hugely popular game deserves articles. Cinnamon colbert (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sigh; as much as I dislike the game, it is hugely popular and should have an article. King Pickle (talk) 00:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It already has two which are much more in-depth and necessary, here and here. Cipher ^(Talk) 18:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yep, but given the sales of each set, not to mention the (apparent) details and references, I think each set is more than notable enough for an article. Hobit (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as said above, but clean the article up some. Izzy007 Talk 17:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus, default to keep. Wizardman 01:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Takam-Chi (film)[edit]

tagged for speedy delete, creator removed tag. title returns no google results. ninety:one 21:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems rather like nonsense to me, as absolutely NOTHING comes up on Google, Ask, Yahoo or DogPile. Note: There is a second similar article on Wikipedia, Takam-Chi, which mentions the film. However, this page was only created recently too.--Seahamlass (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google brings forth very little on Yadollah Samadi (the director). Yahoo claims he did a film in 1986 entitled The Bus and MSN has The Bus and The Man Who Knew More from 1985. A search for "Yadollah Samadi" and "Takam-Chi" brings forth Wikipedia and nothing else. IrishGuy ^talk 23:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As I wrote elsewhere, it is a sad day when Google is considered to be source of knowledge. What I do not understand is: why should I have initiated the entry Takam-Chi (film) if this film did not exist? After all, I did not join Wikipedia today of yesterday? Moreover, there is no history suggesting that I might have perpetrated hoaxs here or elsewhere. Why do some people think that if something does not exist according to Google, that thing must not exist at all? Have we become robots? In this particular case, the film at issue was release only two days ago! How could Google possibly have a record of it? Why such a haste? --BF 23:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~; Google will turn up films that won't be released for years; films aren't made in a day, you know. Even after we put aside any question of a hoax, what about the standards for WP:NF? The fact that there's no source on the net, no matter how brief or unreliable, is not a good sign that this film has reliable sources.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep; okay, we have at least one cite in the article. If it had been there from the start, this all would have been a lot easier.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Google Persian turns up a lot of hits [[5]]. Sometimes, some things might not be well known in the English speaking world and I think Wikipedia is a good way to introduce it. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Then add some appropriate cites to that article. That'll make it at least possible to try and discuss the cites and whether it's notable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I added one. There are more, but I guess one is enough to show the film exists :) --alidoostzadeh (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Its a real movie as you can see here [6].Nokhodi (talk) 01:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can read thatand tell what it says, why do you add it to the article as a cite?--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Redmarkviolinist's passionate defense of the article notwithstanding, this person does not come close to meeting our notability guideline for athletes. Only in the rarest of circumstances are high school athletes notable enough for Wikipedia; examples would be LeBron James and O.J. Mayo, who had their high school games nationally televised, were regularly featured in magazines such as Sports Illustrated and programs such as SportsCenter, Around the Horn and Pardon the Interruption. Ms. Clay should be commended for her achievement, but let's be honest about what she did: she set an obscure high school record in a fairly unpopular sport (relatively speaking, no offense intended). When she competes at the Olympics or whatever the world championship is for her sport, then she'll be deserving of an article, but breaking a high school record, while it's something to be proud of, does not merit an encyclopedia entry. faithless (^speak) 07:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Clay[edit]

High school athlete, from what I can tell probably not notable due to a lack of significant coverage by reliable, independent sources. Guest9999 (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See some of my responses below, but considering that she has not vaulted in any IHSA meets, she has not been recorded under their records. Redmarkviolinist ^{Drop me a line} 16:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A quick google check or Emily Clay, pole vault shows some mention in local periodicals and that she has broken some county records but only in a few sentences here and there and localised blogs. I seriously doubt if she has any national or world significance, she is still a high schooler. She might be a prospect in a few years but at present I see a distinct lack of reasoning why she should constitute a world encyclopedic article. Covering high schoolers I think sets a bad example unless they have national significance. Fails WP:BIO. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - First of all, you can not decide on if an article is notable or not solely by Googling the subject. Next, she does have national significance, or did you just not read the article? She also has world significance for her age. See my responses below. All in all, this article does NOT fail WP:BIO. Redmarkviolinist ^{Drop me a line} 16:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lots of ghits, but mainly just listings for competitions. She might hold a junior high school record, but other people are jumping higher than her now, as this link shows:[7] --Seahamlass (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. She is not in College, and considering that you didn't even get that part of the information right, how can you be trusted to have even read anything up? By the way, it is not only county records she has broken. She has broken the Illinois record for girl's pole vault, and she is expected to break the national record in the next to years. (Even though expected usually does not count for anything.) Redmarkviolinist ^{Drop me a line} 14:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - coverage consists of local high school results. As an athlete, doesn't meet WP:BIO as she is not competing at the top level of her sport, and there is no significant reliable coverage to establish any notability -- Whpq (talk) 20:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you are stating that the first freshman in the country to pole vault 12 feet is not notable? She also set the Illinois state record for Junior High. Also, you can't judge to see if a person is notable solely by Googling them. I was there when she did that jump, and I saw her receive that record. You can take a look at the school homepage. [8] She is indeed notable. Redmarkviolinist ^{Drop me a line} 14:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - yes I am saying that it is not notabble. Where is the coverage from reliable sources to support the notability? Personal observation is not considered a reliable source, nor is the home page of the school that she attends. If you can provide reliable sources, then I'll happily change my vote. but I don't see any, nor can I find any.-- Whpq (talk) 15:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My final vote - Keep. Emily Clay is a freshman in High School, and she has not participated in any IHSA (Illinois High School Association) meets, such as Regionals, Sectionals, or State. Therefore, when she vaulted 12 feet at a local meet, no 'authorities' heard about this. I can give references to Junior High meets when she broke both the Illinois and National Records for Girls pole vault, but until the IHSA hosts any of the meets stated by myself above, she will not be recorded on the internet. In about mid to late April, plenty of references will be up that I will be happy to share. Currently, Emily Clay is tied for the World Record for her age, she has broken both the Illinois and National records. All of this was found out in about 2 minutes of research after the meet. So, I vote that this article should be kept and it will be over-suitably referenced by mid to late August. Redmarkviolinist ^{Drop me a line} 02:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I'm not sure I understand what you are stating. If she vaulted at an unsanctioned event, then there's no record to be had as there has not been verified oversight of the conditions and measurements. And as for world record for her age , can you explain? According to the IAAF, the world record for girl's pole vault for youth is 4.4 metres (IAAF World record listing for girls youth) which is over 14 feet. -- Whpq (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - The meet was not unsanctioned. It consisted of 5 teams, and the height was indeed verified, but it was just not posted on the internet. The world record for her age (14-15 years old, freshmen) is 12 foot also. She is expected to break this height by the next meet, on Tuesday. The world record that you posted for youth is under 18. She still has four more years to break this. By mid-April as I stated above, she will be recorded as the Illinois state record holder. Considering that she has not vaulted in any IHSA meets yet, her height has not be recorded in any site other than local records. Redmarkviolinist ^{Drop me a line} 16:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any references for the current world record for 14-15? The IAAF does not appear to have any such age categorisation. As for the sanctioning, what was the sanctioning body? As you can see, reliable sources remain a problem. -- Whpq (talk) 17:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have a reference, but it is not online. It is in a book/pamphlet/magazine that states the records. The sanctioning body was Illinois Wesleyan University; they held the meet for the 5 or 6 local high schools. Redmarkviolinist ^{Drop me a line} 18:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect that the Illinois Wesleyan University woiuld be the host, but an organisation such as the NCAA would be the sanctioning body, except the NCAA covers college sports. And you stated it wasn't IHSA which I would assume would be the sanctioning body. -- Whpq (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only times that the IHSA sanctions during track is during Regionals, Sectionals, or State. IWU chose to hold an indoor track meet for the relatively local high schools. The majority of High School track meets are run by high schools. Redmarkviolinist ^{Drop me a line} 20:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no reliable secondary sources, and, based on the discussion above, it appears that the notability of the subject was established only by original research. Ketsuekigata (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Incorrect. The nobility of the subject was NOT established only by individual research, or did you not read the discussion above? There is a meet at IWU this Saturday-it is like finals for the series of events held there. There will be results posted after that, and I will put them up here. ṜέđṃάяķvίʘĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} 03:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Discussion below indicates that the article violates WP:SYN and WP:NPOV. --jonny-m t 14:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the future[edit]

This is a textbook example of an indiscriminate collection of information. It isn't that it is crystal balling, because we can document predictions, it is that placing a number of calender events, with sporting plans, and environmental predictions constitutes an original synthesis. None of this is sourced, but even if sourced, why should we use one scientists prediction of the effects of global warming over another's (that's POV). Basically this is going nowhere encyclopedic. Doc^g 21:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nominator. As it stands this page is ridiculous: an amalgam of near-term sporting events, far-distant cosmic and geological forecasts, and entirely speculative predictions of natural disasters and economic trends. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A real fringe theory WP:FRINGE, would have to be proved, and covered to be notable. AlbinoFerret (talk) 05:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately. Lawrence § t/e 17:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a useful article, and it could be more useful if people would contribute to it instead of trying to delete it. I've heard of original sin, but I didn't know that there was a sin of original synthesis! What does "Doc glasgow" mean by "None of this is sourced?" All the things in the table are links, and those links provide the source material! It sounds to me like my article is becoming the victim of sceptics about global warming. As to what Christopher Parham says, the reason that it is an amalgam of near-term, fairly trivial things, and far-term events is that it is a logarithmic scale which gives more weight to the near future. This is entirely natural, since the density of events we can predict (events per unit time) decreases with distance into the future (see logarithmic timeline). As for the far-term predictions being speculative, they are not! I'm willing to debate you on any one of them. And what theory is AlbinoFerret referring to when he says "A real fringe theory"? Which prediction? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 10:29, 29 March 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 result was keep content merged to Corinne Bailey Rae and redirect. Notability for own article is not clear from the discussion but notability by association is. (I did a brute force merge, I ask editors with more knowledge of the subject to please help with the cleanup) - Nabla (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Rae (musician)[edit]

Non notable musician- fails WP:BLP1E as famous for one thing- dying. Member of a redlink band; may warrant a mention on his wife's page, but certainly not his own. Prod removed without explanation. J Milburn (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Due to convincing evidence and a good rewrite, I am convinced that the subject warrants an article. I am not withdrawing my nomination due to the large number of people favouring deletion, but I now feel it should be kept. J Milburn (talk) 12:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or A case may be able to be made for a brief mention on the article about the band, if the page existed or a new section within Corinne Bailey Rae. Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 20:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Famous relative, not notable himself.Be best (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the Corinne Bailey Rae but keep on the Recent Deaths section. Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, more than just a relative of a notable person, Rae was a noted saxophonist and a member of the band The Haggis Horns. His death, sadly, also adds to his notability. --Philip Stevens (talk) 21:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any references suggesting his notability as a saxophonist? J Milburn (talk) 21:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - According to this BBC report on his death. --Philip Stevens (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - that was reporting on his death, not a proper report about the actual band. Unless someone can find an article/review about him (not just the band which some people have been referring to), then this should be deleted. Some famous bands don't even have separate pages for their band members, so I don't see why he should. I'm guessing the sympathy factor is playing a big card here. Feudonym (talk) 12:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redlink band, delete unless someone can find references per above. Izzy007 Talk 21:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 21:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree with Chandlerjoeyross, add this death to his wife's article. Death does not make someone notable. Raphie (talk) 21:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Philip Stevens. He is notable and his death only adds to his media coverage. Death might not make someone notable, but national (and possibly international) media coverage of his death, in addition to the press attention that he has already received, does. Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 22:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This press coverage that no one is showing us... J Milburn (talk) 22:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I did consider the notability of this person before creating the article and I believe that he meets the standards of a wikipedia article because of three good reasons: 1) The story of his death made national news 2) His band, despite not having a page on wiki, are fairly well known and 3) He was the spouse of Corinne Bailey Rae, a reasonably big musician in both the UK and abroad at the moment.—Jkaharper (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect and compact this information into his wife's article. There's nothing to suggest, beyond current news reports which just repeat the same information, that he has any long term notability standalone, and his group that he is a member of seems NN at the moment unless anyone can prove otherwise. If it came down to it though, I'd go for a weak keep over a delete, but merging seems like the best option.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to wife's article. When the BBC headline is "Bailey Rae's husband dies", that suggests much. --Dhartung | Talk 00:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if his notability can be established and referenced. Otherwise, Merge into his wife's article, and redirect the page there. Paul20070 (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notable as spouse of celebrity.- Gilliam (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect - keeping an article just because he died, is very silly indeed. His band isn't even considered notable so neither should he. Feudonym (talk) 01:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Corinne Bailey Rae (wife)'s page. No brainer. Pluswhich (talk) 03:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI think it should stay. It meets standards and it was in the news. And the band was know too. Royalrec
- Sources about the band? Why is everyone so terrified of providing sources? J Milburn (talk) 10:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spouse of celebrity, notability does not transfer. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 09:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable person before he died, even less notable now. Lugnuts (talk) 09:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep He did some work with The New Mastersounds [9] and I'm a sucker for lesser known saxophonists. That plus marriage might be enough. See Eric Rosse (not a spouse, lover), Janis Gaye, Claude Williams (musician), and a few others. Still those others might be more notable so I'd be okay with a redirect to his wife, hence weakness.--T. Anthony (talk) 15:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly fails WP:MUSIC. If we must then merge and redirect to Corinne Bailey Rae. Jdcooper (talk) 17:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, worked with some known bands,wife notable. My criteria is if someone comes looking, they ought to find it on wikipedia.Disk space is cheap. If non-notable, then no processing time will be used.Chickenboner (talk) 20:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Generally, we stick to the established notability guidelines rather than to the criteria of someone with a grand total of seven edits. J Milburn (talk) 10:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, and generally we try not to bite the newcomers either. --Canley (talk) 05:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Apologies, I was somewhat enraged when I made that comment. J Milburn (talk) 13:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in typical wikipedian fashion, I hear about this musician's death on Sirius Radio and I find the article tagged for deletion. 76.226.204.233 (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So, you're saying that you think it should stay because you've heard of it? Wikipedia is not a news service, we're an encyclopedia. J Milburn (talk) 10:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Create a Haggis Horns article, merge with this one. Haggis Horns are currently part of Mark Ronson's band. Ronson is quoted as saying they're the "best horn section in the world". They've played at the Brit Awards. links http://www.futureboogie.com/agency/haggis-horns http://www.brits.co.uk/features/articles/764/ User:joy.discovery.invention
Merge and redirect to 'Corinne Bailey Rae' and 'Haggis Horns' should the latter appear. If he had married an ordinary lass from Aberdeen I doubt he would be notable in his own right. Ben MacDui ^Talk/Walk 08:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's notable! End of story.
- Got any evidence of that? That argument is generally not respected, and for good reason... J Milburn (talk) 10:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please note that the above user is the same one who decided that, rather than actually working to improve the article or arguing in its favour, decided to attack myself and others on the article talk page. J Milburn (talk) 11:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - J Milburn, again I ask that you refrain from your personal attacks against me. You must have a vendetta against me and I find that detrimental to the discussion. The fact that this debate has been continuing shows the notability of Jason Rae. Notability is not solely based on mainstream media attention. James1906
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —Leithp 20:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Normally we encourage articles on the recently dead (see Deaths in 2008 and there are multiple verifiable sources. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The story was on the cover of several newspapers, and in almost all of them yesterday. I live in aberdeen and have met Jason's brother(?) in the past. mrkpwnz (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So apart from his widely reported death, his marriage, and his band he's not notable. If Rae's notability was asserted by one of those, I'd agree the article should probably be merged or deleted, but three? I agree with the nominator that he fails WP:BLP1E though – but that's because he's dead! We can wikilawyer all day about inherited notability and "one event fame" but where there's seven references for a stub I'm all for erring on the side of keep. (PS. I've added a reference from the BRIT awards and an MSN Music list of albums he has played on). --Canley (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Corinne Bailey Rae. Other than his notable widow, he wasn't notable before he died, and there wasn't anything notable about his death. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Jauerback, not notable on his own. Gran² 22:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was a successful studio musician before his death, and had recorded and performed with notable artists. His death has received considerable international coverage, and he's had an extensive obituary written about his life in the Daily Mail. I agree with Canley - successful musician, married to a famous singer, and a widely reported death (with some interesting stories starting to emerge, such as in regard to Amy Winehouse) combine to establish notability. If nothing else, Wikipedia is a logical place for people to look for information about him now that he has died. - Bilby (talk) 04:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not only does this more references than most articles not under review for deletion, this is clearly a notable topic and person. Considering we want, and continue to have people coming to Wikipedia to be fully informed, this page needs to stay.Asdfaeou. (talk) 01:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seriously, compared some of the rubbish that merits an entry on this so-called encyclopaedia, this notable musician is of interest to plenty of people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.177.219 (talk) 11:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete (redirecting is at editor's discretion. I did it) - Nabla (talk) 16:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Harvard Shop[edit]

Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:ORG. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page provides information about one of several prominent retail businesses that compete to provide quality Harvard merchandise. The Harvard University campus is a tourist hotspot, and as such, competition for tourism is quite a notable subject. In addition, the Harvard Shop's membership in Harvard Student Agencies, Inc., a storied organization with a 50-year history that boasts the title of world's largest student-run corporation, makes the Shop an inherent subject of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djlee512 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 23 March 2008

Comment this isn't an article, its a redirect. If you wanna delete the article please nominate that article for deletion. I don't think a redirect itself would be worthwhile to delete. Chimeric Glider (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a redirect now, not previously. The article in which it is redirecting seems to be well-sourced, but when I AfD'd this, there were no source. I will not nominate the other becuase the other has sources. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Harvard Student Agencies, per WP:V. I will note I reverted the redirect; articles up for AfD should not be redirected, since it confuses the issues.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. --jonny-m t 14:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ingrid Andersen[edit]

Apparent autobiography of an author. Article was deleted via WP:PROD in November, but the deletion was contested later. Hence it goes here for wider discussion. B. Wolterding (talk) 20:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but cleanup. From a quick Google search, Ingrid Andersen meets the notability guideline. POV should be removed but the article shouldn't be deleted. PeterSymonds | talk 20:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the article was written by the subject, is inherently POV and entirely unsourced, would it not be better to take a fresh start? --B. Wolterding (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article already had sources, but they weren't in a references section. I fixed that. --Eastmain (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete and redirect to The Colbert Report. --jonny-m t 14:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colbert it[edit]

This is a non-notable idiom. The article is heavily biased (plenty of weasel-words), lacks in-line citations, and is irrelevant overall -- notability has not been established. Wikipedia is not a repository of neologisms or quotes from TV shows -- and this is one step worse, it's something said by fans ABOUT a personality on a TV show; it's not even from the show itself. Poorly-written stub articles about things like this classify as fancruft. There is no point is merging this into the Colbert Report article, as all the same flaws would still exist there, and it wouldn't be contributing to that article (especially since the goal is, as with all articles, for it to be professional). Mr. P. S. Phillips (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Shouldn't warrant an article, but I think a redirect to The Colbert Report is okay. PeterSymonds | talk 20:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, non-notable idiom. TJ Spyke 20:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable indiom, but just improve citations and wording. Consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on idioms. Also, keep per the WP:ITSCRUFT style non-argument. Happy Easter! --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN WP:NEO. I hear the population of Colbert-related idioms has tripled since the debut of his show. --Dhartung | Talk 22:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. needs more sources. Dwilso 04:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redrect no value in this article. Nothing to merge into Colbert Report either.--Rtphokie (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to The Colbert Report Think outside the box 20:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above DJLayton4 (talk) 04:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. This is precisely what Urban Dictionary was created for. (In response to Le Grand Roi's vote above, I submit that there's a huge difference between idiom and slang, and between popular slang and unpopular slang.) --zenohockey (talk) 22:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Wizardman 01:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Olav Reither[edit]

The article clearly asserts notability, and by the looks of it the subject's merits are impressive. However, googling this individual yields very little to substantiate the bold claims. I'm really unsure about this one, since I hesitate to think that this is false, however, with a merit list like his, shouldn't there be at least a newspaper article somewhere? meco (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From what little I can find, I don't think the information is false; but failing the inclusion of secondary sources, the information is completely unverifiable. I'll change my !vote if secondary sources are included. PeterSymonds | talk 20:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I added the one English language citation that I found, and selected one Norwegian language external link. There are several other Norwegian-language links that don't appear to have English language translation. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The two links you added are marginally useful. One confirms that he was a member of the Norwegian Architect Association, the second that he has written about the architecture of a particular kindergarten (if I understand the German correctly), which doesn't even confirm that he was its architect. __meco (talk) 08:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Rename per new sources found during AfD. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KQPW-FM[edit]

No KQPW-FM exists in FCC database, nor does a KQPW-LP. The article mentions WQPW which is a station in Georgia not Illinois. Rtphokie (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no West Quincy, Illinois or West Quincy, Iowa (but there is a West Quincy, Missouri, which is unincorporated), and a search of the MIT radio station directory does not show any station on the 102.5 frequency anywhere near Quincy or equivalent call letters. Nate • (chatter) 21:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've done a bit of cleanup on this article and while I've found evidence that this station was broadcasting in 2003 [10] and 2005 [11] as well as one secondary source reference (which, of course, I've added to the article) but I suspect that this LPFM station is no longer broadcasting or has changed callsigns and frequencies. In any case, the article should be at KQPW-LP and not KQPW-FM, even if the station is (potentially) now defunct. - Dravecky (talk) 23:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow-up The station was granted a license to cover on 2002-09-17 as KQPW-LP, licensed to "School of Christ", community West Quincy, Missouri, on 102.5 MHz. The facility ID is 131727. Here's the FCC page. - Dravecky (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I would be willing to change over to weak keep if there are more sources to tell us this station is on the air or not, or that it has a history beyond broadcasting "techno preaching". The sourcing you've added is excellent at least. Nate • (chatter) 06:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Thanks for finding that information, is this still an active station? It's still not coming up in the FCC database so I suspect it's off the air. My meter is still in the delete range and it's going to take finding that the station is active and improving the sources a bit more to move me into anywhere near a keep.--Rtphokie (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply You might have noticed that I have been uncharacteristically quiet on the whole "keep or delete" question. My meter is no longer in the delete range after I was able to find that the station at least used to exist, was FCC-licensed, and had at least an amount of coverage in secondary sources. If pushed, I'll say Weak Keep and suggest we tag it as a defunct radio station and stash it in Category:Defunct radio stations in the United States until we can find more info. - Dravecky (talk) 00:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to KQPW-LP. This station is indeed defunct, as its license was canceled in 2006 [12], but it was certainly licensed and broadcasting from 2002 to at least 2005. DHowell (talk) 03:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —147.21.16.3 (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Deleted by DGG (talk · contribs) per WP:CSD#G7 (Non-admin closure).. PeterSymonds | talk 21:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Army of God against Jews, Jihad and Atheists[edit]

Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC) Delete. I can't find anything at all under that name. Commment Why was the page blanked? Hobit (talk) 20:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete and move to speedy close. Author has blanked the page. Looking at the history, the article was probably nonsense. PeterSymonds | talk 20:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Domain Registry Support[edit]

This article is about a company with doubtable business practices, and I can understand the interest of users to warn others of their methods. However, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Maybe a journalist should look into the matter, and might find a good story. However, currently it seems that no journalist has done so. As long as the entry is sourced entirely to blogs, and not to reliable sources, there's no place for this information in an encyclopaedia. Note to conspiracy theorists: I am not affiliated with the said company in any way. B. Wolterding (talk) 19:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While this company's alleged business practices may in fact be deplorable, the fact is they simply have not been covered in reliable sources. The only source listed that could be considered reliable is the BetterBusinessBureau page, which is essentially a directory listing, and not enough to hang a potentially controversial encyclopedia article on. Jfire (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe this company has been covered in reliable sources, including the BBB ~~and the FTC~~. The article needs a lot of work, but reliable sources is not an issue IMO. I also disagree that a BBB report is essentially a directory listing. For a BBB report to exist at least one case was opened by a consumer and investigated by a BBB representative. The report is posted and maintained online for all complaints filed, so the document does not represent a single situation but a collection of all as maintained in the "Complaint Outcome Statistics" section of the report.

Perhaps we just need to clean up ~~and integrate the FTC source into the article~~. Corey Salzano (talk) 17:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - The FTC and NetRaising.com sources are in reference to a different company entirely -- "Domain Registry of America, Inc." based in Markham, Ontario with a mail drop in Buffalo, New York, whose renewal notices feature "a red, white, and blue American flag billowing over the company’s name, Domain Registry of America" [13] (compare to Domain Registry Support, address in New York, NY, and the DRS renewal notice). The NetworkWold.com article is a post to "Gibbsblog" and, like the other blog posts, cannot be considered a reliable source. Jfire (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about that being a different company in the FTC source. I'm sorry for any confusion I have caused. Corey Salzano (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nominator. - Nabla (talk) 12:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To summarize: The sources "FTC" and "Netrasing.com" are about a different company. "Networkworld" is a blog post. There remains a short listing by a customer watchdog organization, which apparently received 3 complaints. Additionally, that "Domain Registry Support" and "Domain Support Group" (as listed on BBB.org) are the same company seems to be original research. For me, this does not suffice. I stand by my nomination rationale. --B. Wolterding (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laurenţiu Rotaru[edit]

This article does not meet the notability requirements for a wikipedia article. It is also based entirely from the individual's own website and may be an attempt at self promotion. Nrswanson (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. An article by the same name was deleted from the Romanian wikipedia, probably as a copyvio. 26 noiembrie 2007 11:47 Radufan (discuţie | contribuţii) a şters Laurenţiu Rotaru ‎ (conţinutul era: „((ajutor)) ==Legături externe== *Situl personal al lui Laurenţiu Rotaru en:Laurenţiu Rotaru”) --Eastmain (talk) 20:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 20:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 20:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. Note that he reportedly toured internationally (but as part of a group of singers, rather than as a solo artist), and that he has performed at Carnegie Hall. These claims are not referenced, but sound plausible. I was able to confirm that he performed with various groups and that he was a winner of the Connecticut Opera Guild's 50th Annual Young Artist Scholarship Competition. --Eastmain (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the information in this article is taken from the artists own website. I can not find any reviews of any perfromances this artist has done and i have done a fairly exhaustive internet search. The repetoire list given seems to be mostly roles learned as opposed to roles actually performed on the stage professionally. His work with the Connecticut opera also appears to be through a Young Artist program which really would not make him notable yet. Also the NATS competition he won was for the Connecticut chapter and not on the national level. That's not really a major competition win then. Also he must have been part of an ensemble for the Carnegie hall performance or otherwise the New York Times or Village Voice etc. would have reviewed him which they haven't in doing a database search. Also, the ensembles he was touring with are not highly notable groups. One was a seminary choir. That is not exactly notable work. This artist has not sung anything but minor roles in professional productions and the productions through the Young Artist program at Connecticut Opera. He is an opera singer in training basically. Not really the stuff of a wikipedia article.Nrswanson (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable and the page is a copy and paste job anyway. -- Kleinzach (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero non-trivial independent coverage combined with a lack of leading roles with notable companies and a failure to win any prizes in significant competitions at national level. Having fulfilled one of these criteria might have made up for lack of the others, but this is not the case here. His performances so far have all been via student productions or young artists' programmes (and not even in major roles) and as a member of a seminary or university choir. The competitions he 'won', weren't exactly 'won'. In the case of the NATS, he came in second in a preliminary round for the regionals and progressed no further. The Connecticut Guild Opera Competition is set up to award scholarship money to local singing students, and again he came in second. In the other two competitions mentioned (also minor), he was only a finalist, i.e., not a winner. As for Carnegie Hall, even if he were the featured soloist, which he apparently wasn't, anyone can rent the Hall for the evening. It looks like that particular evening was a fundraiser for the Connecticut Lyric Opera (a very minor company, using mainly students for their productions). He might become notable one day, but he definitely isn't notable now. Voceditenore (talk) 08:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Needs to at least have some reliable sources to prove notability; otherwise it fails WP:CORP, WP:V, etc. As DGG mentioned, it isn't technically a speedy since there is assertion of notability, though given the barren state of sources I'll delete for now. If they pop up in the future, feel free to recreate the article. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 23:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zeitgeist Project[edit]

Hmmm... what to say about this one? According to its website the Zeitgeist Project is "a bold and historic initiative that seeks to bring together under one roof a society’s most influential leaders, thinkers, and artists not only to celebrate the Zeitgeist but also to address viral ideologies." Apparently it will be led by a panel of "royalty, heads of state, UN representatives, international business leaders and Nobel Laureates." Oddly though, for such a lofty organisation, its website offers no information whatsoever about who is behind the project, or who these world leaders and Nobel Laureates are. And given its crucial importance, it seems strange that Google finds only 82 hits for the phrase "Zeitgeist Project", few or none of which appear to relate to this organisation. And it's odder still that an organisation of global importance seems to use linkspamming ~~across~~ on Wikipedia as its main method of publicising itself (see the revision histories of Zeitgeist and Zeitgeist the Movie - the latter particularly inappropriate as the website declares loudly that it has nothing to do with the movie). I can only conclude that this is one of three things: a shadowy, secretive and therefore unverifiable organisation; something just invented by a person whose ambitions are far greater than his connections; or an outright fabrication. Whichever of the three it is, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 19:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Fractionally more substance than a typical MADEUP article but nowhere near enough to justify inclusion. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no evidence of notability, only source is their own website. JohnCD (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See Talk:Zeitgeist Project for the article author's response to this. I'm not convinced; I concur with Iain99 and recommend deletion. -- The Anome (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per above. It's not made up but it easily fails the notability guideline. PeterSymonds | talk 20:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RELY In response to the request for deletion of "Zeitgeist Project":

1. The reason sited for deletion is: "non-notable organisation. A glance at their website will show that it does not exist yet Speedy concern: non-notable organisation. A glance at their website will show that it does not exist yet." THIS IS FALSE. The site does exist (www.zeitgeistproject.org)

2. It is claimed: "it seems strange that Google finds only 82 hits for the phrase "Zeitgeist Project", few or none of which appear to relate to this organisation" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zeitgeist_Project). THIS IS CORRECT, but this is only because the Zeitgeist Project only went live a few days ago. Therefore, the above reason for deletion is not justifiable.

3. It is claimed: "Oddly though, for such a lofty organisation, its website offers no information whatsoever about who is behind the project, or who these world leaders and Nobel Laureates are." As stated on the Zeitgeist Project website, the project is ONLY in its infancy stages. The website NO where claims that the advisory board exists. The website's intend "is" to explain the vision and scope of what the Zeitgeist Project CAN be.

4. It is claimed: "And it's odder still that an organisation of global importance seems to use linkspamming across Wikipedia as its main method of publicising itself." To use the word "across" is hyperbolic. The author of this criticism only offers two examples one of which is the article "Zeitgeist". Since the Zeitgeist Project directly pertains to the Zeitgeist then how is adding an external and internal link to the "Zeitgeist" Wikipedia article a form of "linkspamming"?I wonder if the author of this criticism is the same author of the Zeitgeist article entry.

5. It is claimed: "I can only conclude that this is one of three things: a shadowy, secretive and therefore unverifiable organisation; something just invented by a person whose ambitions are far greater than his connections; or an outright fabrication. Whichever of the three it is, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia." None of these claims have any substance, in fact these remarks border on being incendiary. This person's entire case for deletion is a non sequitur. For example, to claim that Zeitgeist Project is an "ambitious" project and THEREFORE should be deleted is simply nonsensical and should not even require a response. However, a response is required or the Zeitgeist Project entry will be deleted. Second, there is nothing "shadowy" and/or "secretive" about the Zeitgeist Project. Did the author of this criticism actually read what the Zeitgeist Project hopes to accomplish? What it is promoting is anything but "shadowy" - ambitious yes, but surely NOT secretive. Finally, what is meant by "outright fabrication"? Clearly this is another example of a type of ignoratio elenchi fallacy. --Charles vanier (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an hypothetical organisation with no real evidence of even existence, but I do nto see how it is really fits the dfefinition of speedy, since it does assert importance.DGG (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear DGG, thank you for your remarks. You are correct the criticism against the Zeitgeist Project does not fall under the definition of "speedy". Please define as to what constitutes a "hypothetical organization" and what would constitute, in your own words, "real evidence"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles vanier (talk • contribs)

Comment Charles, I suggest you read our policies and guidelines on notability, verifiability, reliable sources and speculation. If, as you say, this is a nascent organisation with no coverage in reliable sources (such as newspapers) then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia yet. Being ambitious is good, but at the moment there is no way for the rest of us to tell whether your ability to carry the project through matches your ambitions, and therefore whether anything will come of it. As such an article at this time would be premature. If you do manage to recruit world leaders and Nobel laureates to your group though, you will get plenty of coverage and an article would be guaranteed. Until then though, the mere fact that you desire to recruit them is not by itself enough. Sorry for suggesting the organisation was a fabrication but - here's some friendly advice - by making so many claims about how important the Zeitgeist Project is going to be and providing so little support for them (even contact details are missing), your site does look like some of the hoax websites I've seen. We get a lot of them here. As for the linking, see Wikipedia:External links; Wikipedia articles are not places to collect any and all links with a tangential relevance to the subject of the article. The correct place for a link to zeitgeistproject would be the organisation's article itself - if it survives this AfD. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 22:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Iain99, thank you for your insightful remarks. As I am new to Wikipedia I am in the process of learning all the various "rules." I have read carefully the "Notability" article [14], however, I am not claiming the "notability criterion" as a means of authenticity. You correctly mention that there is "no way" of knowing "whether anything will come of it (Zeitgeist Project)". You are correct. As in most things in life there are no certainties. I will do everything in my power to make this vision a reality. If you recognize the value of appropriating "Unity in diversity for the purpose of cultivating peace" then I humbly submit this article on the Zeitgeist Project as a MEANS of moving the project along. As you are well aware Wikipedia is a powerful tool of communication, hence my reason in submitting the "Zeitgeist Project" article. Second, "contact details are (not) missing" (please see [15]). To your credit, the Contact link may have been dead when you checked. I must confess, I do not understand when you say that "your site does look like some of the hoax website." I can assure you it is not. Please read my bio [16]

--Charles vanier (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable based on author's description here. Klausness (talk) 01:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per obvious COI issue as Charles vanier claims to be the founder of said group! Also, despite its grand ideas, the group doesn't meet them yet. Perhaps one day, if it can ever achieve such a status it might be worthy of an article, but as the group just went live a few days ago (and did so without heads of state/nobel laureates) then it is currently not notable.Balloonman (talk) 06:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.

- What the common denominator amongst those who are requesting deletion is the consistent lack of sustained argument.

- Notice that no one actually quotes from Wikipedia deletion policy. This is very telling. For example, Balloonman states that his ‘reason’ for deletion is COI. A cursory reading of Wikipedia’s official policy about deletion clearly does NOT state that COI is one of its criteria.

- Given the lack of cogent arguments, it is also suspect why people even “feel” compelled to submit a request for deletion, especially given the fact that they make vague and incorrect assertions about Wikipedia’s official policy.

- In other words, it makes sense to submit a request for deletion when there is justifiable warrant after explicitly citing from Wikipedia’s official policy pertaining to causes for deletion. --Charles vanier (talk) 14:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Waffly article about a plan or scheme which apparently lacks reliable sources indicating notability at the moment. If this becomes notable, another Bilderberg Group, Bohemian Club, or Council on Foreign Relations, we'll know that the Illuminati are behind it, but at least it will be notable. But not yet. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Nabla (talk) 02:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speed limits in Washington[edit]

The article has been left incomplete, and has been touched sparingly since its creation. The information that is there is entirely uncited, and possibly incorrect. (Being from the area, I can tell you that most of the counties colored "Other" in the map should probably be colored for 60 mph.) Furthermore, the topic is just too darn specific to be notable/encyclopedic. (No other U.S. state has such an article.) Kéiryn ^talk 19:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's nothing in this article that's significantly different from the speed limits of any other state. Add to that the hand-waving peacock word "usually" and there's no practical content at all. --Dhartung | Talk 20:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too much about specifics. There is nothing remarkable about these speed limits, from what I can see, and therefore fails WP:NOTE. Plus the table is, with the exception of one cell, empty. PeterSymonds | talk 21:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- Eóin (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing notable in the very limited content of the article. Eóin (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. But needs to add more sources. Dwilso 04:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - far to specific. Are we going to have an article for every state? Think outside the box 20:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Wizardman 02:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Savannah State University College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences[edit]

Google searches reveal little coverage of this topic. It fails to satisfy notability guidelines because it provides no reliable sources that have significant coverage of the college itself (accreditation databases are not significant coverage). It has little potential to become notable in the future. Noetic Sage 19:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —Noetic Sage 19:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but improve the article by giving it an appropriate lead, reference citations, etc. This is a fork off from Savannah State University, although the article fails to mention its parentage. Notability derives from the main article. It looks to me like it was split off without bringing along the reference citations or writing a lead. I would suggest merging it back into the parent article, but Savannah State University is long enough without including this content. --Orlady (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: In fact, notability is not inherited from a parent article. Just because Savannah State University is notable does not mean that all of its constituent colleges are notable. Each subarticle still has to satisfy general notability guidelines on its own.—Noetic Sage 20:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think the important sections are:
    - "In addition, notability of a parent entity or topic (of a parent-child "tree") does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities." And
    - "Often, a separate article is created for formatting and display purposes. However, this does not imply an "inherited notability" per se"

Hobit (talk) 02:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is information that should be pared to fit into the parent article. Wikipedia is not a directory of every academic program within a school. The American definition of college is not sufficiently independent from the university to merit a separate article. --Dhartung | Talk 20:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but, wiki should have some policy on schools - clearly, every accredited Ph.D. granting institution, all landgrant colleges etc are worthy, but is there a line ? many local schools have a wiki aritcle, so I don't see why a whole college can't have one.Cinnamon colbert (talk) 23:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article was created because the Savannah State University article was tagged as ((verylong)). This article was created to retain the information in Wikipedia. As previously stated with the recommending editor I do not agree with deletion recommendation, however, I am the origianal editor. Absolon S. Kent (talk) 00:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Classic breakout article per WP:SIZE. Hobit (talk) 01:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The major divisions of a university are notable, because enough important things can be said and sourced about them. It would be notable if free-standing, and it's no less notable though it is part of a larger unit. DGG (talk) 05:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bundle Merge Savannah State University College of Business Administration, Savannah State University College of Sciences and Technology, and Savannah State University College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences into Savannah State University Academics. Although I agree with Noetic Sage in citing WP:ITSA, merging all subsequent colleges into one article should definitely demonstrate proper notability (I mean it's the academics part of the university...:D). Note recent move I made from List of Florida Institute of Technology Colleges and Laboratories -> Florida Institute of Technology Academics. This has been done to other university articles as well and it's worked out quite well. (Off-topic Side-note: we might need to bundle merge subsequent colleges belonging to University of Florida.) - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 00:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this administrative division of the school is not notable. Although it has many students, faculty and buildings, it really consists of little more than a few rules and a few bureaucrats that function in the background of the university's real functions. An example of a notable administrative subunit of a university is the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business, which might have a bit too many listed profs, but has oodles of sources for its top ten rankings; in BusinessWeek, The Economist, Financial Times, Forbes, USA Today, US News & World Report, and the Wall Street Journal. AnteaterZot (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - These 3 Savannah State University articles proposed for deletion are not about school administration. Rather, they comprise most of Wikipedia's content about this university's academic programs. --Orlady (talk) 02:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Wizardman 02:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Savannah State University College of Sciences and Technology[edit]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —Noetic Sage 19:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but improve the article by giving it an appropriate lead, reference citations, etc. This is a fork off from Savannah State University, although the article fails to mention its parentage. Notability derives from the main article. It looks to me like it was split off without bringing along the reference citations or writing a lead. I would suggest merging it back into the parent article, but Savannah State University is long enough without including this content. --Orlady (talk) 19:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: In fact, notability is not inherited from a parent article. Just because Savannah State University is notable does not mean that all of its constituent colleges are notable. Each subarticle still has to satisfy general notability guidelines on its own.—Noetic Sage 20:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is information that should be pared to fit into the parent article. Wikipedia is not a directory of every academic program within a school. The American definition of college is not sufficiently independent from the university to merit a separate article. --Dhartung | Talk 20:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article was created because the Savannah State University article was tagged as ((verylong)). This article was created to retain the information in Wikipedia. As previously stated with the recommending editor I do not agree with deletion recommendation, however, I am the origianal editor. Absolon S. Kent (talk) 00:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Classic breakout article per WP:SIZE. These probably should have been bundled. Hobit (talk) 02:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The major divisions of a university are notable, because enough important things can be said and sourced about them. It would be notable if free-standing, and it's no less notable though it is part of a larger unit. DGG (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bundle Merge Savannah State University College of Business Administration, Savannah State University College of Sciences and Technology, and Savannah State University College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences into Savannah State University Academics. Although I agree with Noetic Sage in citing WP:ITSA, merging all subsequent colleges into one article should definitely demonstrate proper notability (I mean it's the academics part of the university...:D). Note recent move I made from List of Florida Institute of Technology Colleges and Laboratories -> Florida Institute of Technology Academics. This has been done to other university articles as well and it's worked out quite well. (Off-topic Side-note: we might need to bundle merge subsequent colleges belonging to University of Florida.) - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 00:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this administrative division of the school is not notable. Although it has many students, faculty and buildings, it really consists of little more than a few rules and a few bureaucrats that function in the background of the university's real functions. An example of a notable administrative subunit of a university is the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business, which might have a bit too many listed profs, but has oodles of sources for its top ten rankings; in BusinessWeek, The Economist, Financial Times, Forbes, USA Today, US News & World Report, and the Wall Street Journal. AnteaterZot (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Wizardman 02:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Savannah State University College of Business Administration[edit]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —Noetic Sage 19:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but improve the article by giving it an appropriate lead, reference citations, etc. This is a fork off from Savannah State University, although the article fails to mention its parentage. Notability derives from the main article. It looks to me like it was split off without bringing along the reference citations or writing a lead. I would suggest merging it back into the parent article, but Savannah State University is long enough without including this content. --Orlady (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: In fact, notability is not inherited from a parent article. Just because Savannah State University is notable does not mean that all of its constituent colleges are notable. Each subarticle still has to satisfy general notability guidelines on its own.—Noetic Sage 20:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is information that should be pared to fit into the parent article. Wikipedia is not a directory of every academic program within a school. The American definition of college is not sufficiently independent from the university to merit a separate article. --Dhartung | Talk 20:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article was created because the Savannah State University article was tagged as ((verylong)). This article was created to retain the information in Wikipedia. As previously stated with the recommending editor I do not agree with deletion recommendation, however, I am the origianal editor. Absolon S. Kent (talk) 00:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Classic breakout article per WP:SIZE. This really should have been bundled.... Hobit (talk) 02:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand The major divisions of a university are notable, because enough important things can be said and sourced about them. It would be notable if free-standing, and it's no less notable though it is part of a larger unit. DGG (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bundle Merge Savannah State University College of Business Administration, Savannah State University College of Sciences and Technology, and Savannah State University College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences into Savannah State University Academics. Although I agree with Noetic Sage in citing WP:ITSA, merging all subsequent colleges into one article should definitely demonstrate proper notability (I mean it's the academics part of the university...:D). Note recent move I made from List of Florida Institute of Technology Colleges and Laboratories -> Florida Institute of Technology Academics. This has been done to other university articles as well and it's worked out quite well. (Off-topic Side-note: we might need to bundle merge subsequent colleges belonging to University of Florida.) - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 22:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this administrative division of the school is not notable. Although it has many students, faculty and buildings, it really consists of little more than a few rules and a few bureaucrats that function in the background of the university's real functions. An example of a notable administrative subunit of a university is the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business, which might have a bit too many listed profs, but has oodles of sources for its top ten rankings; in BusinessWeek, The Economist, Financial Times, Forbes, USA Today, US News & World Report, and the Wall Street Journal. AnteaterZot (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. John254 23:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

University of Georgia College of Environment & Design[edit]

There appears to be little information on this university college anywhere. It fails to satisfy notability guidelines because it provides no reliable sources that have significant coverage of the college itself (rather than simply ranking one program in the college). Even with the best architecture program in the country, the college itself is not notable. Noetic Sage 18:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —Noetic Sage 18:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: (Disclaimer - I created this article) I believe this article meets notability guidelines. The third party sources quoted are reliable sources ("Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable"). Granted the undergrad/grad rankings are short in size, but they are non-trivial - this is a primary organization in that field and they put much work and thought into the rankings. The sources quoted show a continued presence in those rankings by the school. Also, the College's only undergraduate degree is a Bachelor of Landscape Architecture and the Master of Landscape Architecture is one of two graduate degrees, so the rankings are for the vast majority of college not just a program as mentioned above. It should be noted that the school changed it's name in 2001 so that can pose some difficulty when finding references to the school before that time. There are numerous articles about the school available (they obviously need to be put in the article itself). For example: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]. George Hargreaves is a notable alumni. Finally, this article already contains more third-party citations than any other school in Category:Landscape architecture schools. --Roswell native (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - This is one of many forks from University of Georgia, which would be a huge article if it included detailed content about all sixteen of its constituent schools and colleges. It would not make much sense to delete this one article, while keeping the other fifteen separate articles for individual schools and colleges within the university. --Orlady (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If you look at any of the other featured university articles, none of them include detailed content about all of their constituent colleges. Furthermore, many of these schools do not have subarticles for these constituent colleges. I would argue that the University of Georgia article should not have this detailed information. Wikipedia is not a guide to education or all the different academic programs in each university. I also agree that it would not make much sense to delete this while keeping the other 15 articles, which is why they should be deleted as well.—Noetic Sage 20:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Well, if that's your perspective, please don't simply delete the articles. Instead, merge the content back into the parent article. When contributors heed the guidance at Wikipedia:Article size by splitting off article components that appear to them to have stand-alone notability, only to have the split-off articles deleted, articles like University of Georgia end up with content about peripheral topics like the history of individual campus buildings, but without content about the university's academic programs. --Orlady (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Classic breakout article per WP:SIZE. Fairly well sourced all by itself though, enough for a weak keep. Hobit (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Up-Merge and Delete I sympathize with User:Roswell native and understand where User:Orlady's rebuttal on article size, but I've read through the article, and it really doesn't seem like there's enough notability. Name change's been noted, alumni noted, but this is almost (if not exactly) like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florida Institute of Technology/College of Engineering, which was deleted without redirect after I moved it into a new list of every single college at Florida Tech. I'm not saying that since my article was deleted this one should be too, just saying that the circumstances are similar enough to bring them into comparison. Advice about bickering the reason behind an editor nominating an article for deletion is to be proactive about the deletion process and seek a way to save/salvage the information yourself. If you really want this information to be merged, copy this article into your personal user sandbox, and if/when the article is deleted, merge it into the main university article yourself. It's really that simple. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand The major divisions of a university are notable, because enough important things can be said and sourced about them. It would be notable if free-standing, and it's no less notable though it is part of a larger unit. There is major potential for growth, and if a merge is proposed I will surely oppose it. It seems something was done inappropriately on another article, and that should be reconsidered, not used as a precedent. DGG (talk) 05:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand Schools and colleges that comprise major research universities, of which UGA is one, are generally notable considering the far reaching impact in scientific understanding within the school's particular scope, as well as the $10s to 100s of millions in annual budgets and economic impact they typically encompass. This is a stub level article, however, but there is plenty of precedent for its inclusion in wikipedia. cp101p (talk) 08:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, this administrative division of the school is notable, because it has sources that say it is notable--number one in the US for landscape architecture, it seems. AnteaterZot (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and expand This is a College within a Major Research University. Jccort (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Wizardman 01:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Middle School Attached to Nanjing University[edit]

Contains no reliable sources or references. Does not appear to have potential to become notable, as internet searches reveal practically no reference to this institution. Noetic Sage 18:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —Noetic Sage 18:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —KTC (talk) 18:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. KTC (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. PeterSymonds | talk 20:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to High School Affiliated to Nanjing Normal University: I did a google search on the school's Chinese name. Since in Chinese, (in Chinese) 中學 (pronounced zhong xue) can mean junior high or senior high school, this article is basically reiterating the same information as High School Affiliated to Nanjing Normal University. This redirect article has minor notability (mainly from notable alumni), currently rated as a stub. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - thanks for this. The problem, that I see, is that the middle school was founded in 1896 and the high school in 1902 which indicates separate establishments. TerriersFan (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ketsuekigata (talk) 02:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Kubigula (talk) 02:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prisoner of Conscious (album)[edit]

Unreleased album (crystal ballism) with little or no media coverage and no references. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums and WP:V. Prod removed without comment. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 18:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 18:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability and no sources. Perhaps recreate when the album is released, providing more info can be added. PeterSymonds | talk 20:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not encyclopedic enough. Dwilso 04:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with many, many other self-published and quasi-self-published albums. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Nabla (talk) 02:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terrier Nation[edit]

Nonnotable show on student TV station; no external sources cited. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of notability, or redirect to butv10. ... discospinster _talk 18:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable at present. Couldn't find any third party sources or independent media coverage. Think outside the box 20:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOTABILITY by a long shot. Possible redirect to butv10. Undeath (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Wizardman 01:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VbPortal[edit]

Non notable vBulletin addon. No references are cited at all and the article is primarily written by the addon developers themselves. Save-Me-Oprah^(talk) 18:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or, if it can be done with reliable sources, merge with vBulletin. Otherwise, a basic synopsis of VbPortal could be added to vBulletin, and a redirect created. PeterSymonds | talk 21:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

12 months after the article is published you both just happen by and want it deleted. Why delete this article in particular and are all the other articles on every single wiki page that does not have references cited also going to be recommended by you for deletion ? It can not be merged with vBulletin's page because it would cause a riot on that page (read over the vBulletin discussion page and you will understand). The article was not primarily written by the add-on developers themselves, it was a combination of contributions by members then drafted and improved by same members. Its just coincidence I am the only one developer who has or is interested in having a wiki account and posted the article. No where does it say who can or can not submit an article to wiki and no where does it say that an article like this can not be submitted. What references do you want cited ? Scotsmist (talk) 17:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By having a close affiliation to the subject of the article and being the primary contributor to the article (You've made 16 out of the total of 30 edits), you have a conflict of interest. Please see WP:CONFLICT for more info. Also, the article does not pass the criteria for notability, outlined in WP:WEB. I suggest you read up in those two essays. Save-Me-Oprah^(talk) 02:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have such a good grasp on Wiki, you decide as I have no further interest here. I try not to associate with elitest nerds or bottom feeders, instead I try to build and give back to others. Its too easy destroying other peoples work, anyone can do that and doesn't take much effort. The people I know and associate with work together. IF you don't have something good to say about yourself, look for something bad to say about something else, huh ! So long and thanks for all the fish. Scotsmist (talk) 12:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 04:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History by region[edit]

Totally useles article in view of Category:History by region. It was created long time ago when the ystem of categories was not crystallized for good. `'Míkka >t 17:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No comment. Lady Galaxy 17:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article contains nothing but links. This is what categories are for. PeterSymonds | talk 20:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no content. Covered by Category:History by region. Think outside the box 20:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. This page contains absolutely no content other than a list of names. Categories cover these pretty well. Rjd0060 (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of female basketball players[edit]

This is an unmaintainable list that adds nothing to categories. I have googled all four red links on the list and three of the four of them have no business ever being articles. B (talk) 16:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No comment. Lady Galaxy 17:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is what Category:Women's basketball players is for. The article is just a bare list of names and adds nothing to what the category provides. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is what categories are for. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone. Basically this list would include every player in one whole professional league. It's too unmaintainable and is made redundant by a category Doc Strange^{Mailbox Orbitting Black Hole}Strange Frequencies 18:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. KTC (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Already covered by a category, and there's nothing particularly notable (at least not anymore) about listing female basketball players. The list could have hundreds of names. 23skidoo (talk) 19:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per everyone. Maxa megalon 2000 19:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely unmaintainable. This list could also include every player at every NCAA or NAIA school that fields a women's team, not to mention international colleges and universities. not practical. DarkAudit (talk) 22:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article does NOT meet the criteria for deletion. The content of this article is valuable to the WikiProject Countering systemic bias. And clearly, Editors have continued to contribute to it. The article should be kept and improved, and perhaps targeted to become one of the Wikipedia:Featured lists. It is just as maintainable as the List of Eagle Scouts or the List of basketball players from small colleges.

As Admins and Editors, we should be focused on improving the content of Wikipedia, not diminishing it, and assisting any Editors who grow Wikipedia. Placing an AfD tag, rather than a ((Prod)) or ((Cleanup)) tag, could be misconstrued an abuse of leadership, if not Admin powers. I would encourage those of you who have followed the pack in "delete" voting, to think collaboratively. Consider contacting and assisting Editors who might be interested in improving this article... perhaps even become a mentor and make this your project with the mentee. Deebki 10:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete As likely redundancy and very incomplete. I guess the category/sub categories are more then enough as there are tons of female basketball players. --JForget 23:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 18:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Brandt[edit]

Does not meet WP:PORNBIO criteria; unsourced AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree. Lady Galaxy 17:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not Encyclopedic. Dwilso 04:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Aleta ^Sing 11:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable Think outside the box 20:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Some info may be useful some somewhere, not clear from the discussion. So I'll move it under Star Fleet Universe/Lyran and keep it there for a week or so before actuallly deleting. (similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interstellar Concordium (2nd nomination)) - Nabla (talk) 13:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lyran[edit]

AfDs related to this article:

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Lyran

This is technically the second nomination, as there was a vfd in october 2004. The result of that debate was "keep, or maybe merge somewhere". The article is about a fictional felinoid race in the Star Fleet Universe, which in turn is some sort of offshoot from the Star Trek fictional universe. This race is in control of the "Lyran Star Empire", which was deleted in another afd, and an offshoot of this Star Empire called the "Lyran Democratic Republic", which too was deleted in yet another afd. I think that while Star Fleet Universe may be notable, a race within it is certainly not - and unsurprisingly, there are no significant coverage in reliable third party sources that are independent of the subject to be found. If it has to exist, it would probably be better off with a deletion anyways. Jobjörn (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I nominated another similar article in the same fictional universe: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interstellar Concordium (2nd nomination) Jobjörn (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge it and it's fellow SFB races into one article. Use in both SFB and Starfleet Command probably makes it notable. A number of fairly trivial mentions here and 11,000 Ghits here imply notability, but not enough for a single article on the race IMO (unless someone can find something more). Hobit (talk) 20:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge OR redirect to Alpha Octant which contains information on the races/factions in the Star Fleet universe. -- saberwyn 22:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, Alpha Octant contains information on the races/factions in the Alpha Octant. I'd rather see the creation of List of races and factions in the Star Fleet Universe and the deletion of both Alpha Octant and Omega Octant (but I will wait with proposing the deletion of these two until this afd and this one are closed (and of course I'll only proceed if the result is delete/merge/redirect)). Jobjörn (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Cool. I know nothing about the Star Fleet Universe (Star Trek yes, Star Fleet no) and don't actually care what happens to this. I just thought Alpha Octant was a suitable redirect target. -- saberwyn 22:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 10:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this article's content is almost exclusively made up of in universe plot summary, and has no primary or reliable secondary sources to demonstrate the notability outside the role playing game from which this fictional confederation is derived. This article belongs on a fansite, not Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no secondary sources, so fails to meet WP:N. Indeed, there are sources at all, so it's not verifiable and as such the content is not even suitable for a spinout. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please recall that _topics_ need to meet WP:N, not articles. There seem to be sources (see above), just not very good ones. But probably enough between all the different races.... Hobit (talk) 03:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do recall that. The topic of this article is "Lyrans", and that fails WP:N and so the article on that topic should be deleted. There are no sources in the article, so the content all fails WP:V and shouldn't be merged. Percy Snoodle (talk) 06:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — do not merge; even a merge would necessitate some degree of notability which has not been demonstrated. Maybe include in a List of fictional felinoid races in fictional Star Trek-derived universes. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't need an article on fictional Star Fleet Universe! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. John254 23:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Dead Betties[edit]

Does not meet WP:MUSIC criteria AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 16:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The band has toured nationally and internationally. I added some references. --Eastmain (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: With 3,700 ghits, and some write-ups on some pretty important websites, I think this band meets the Wikipedia notability standard.--Seahamlass (talk) 22:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - references added seem to indicate enough notability. Aleta ^Sing 01:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedily deleted under WP:CSD#G7 (author blanked). matt br 16:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sexy chick[edit]

Delete: Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - also Wikipedia is not a dictionary or guide to slang. JohnCD (talk) 16:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SV Nord Lerchenau[edit]

Lack of notability, the team is playing socker only in a county league Matthiasb-DE (talk) 16:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable club with only just over a line of text. The fact that Andreas Ottl was there doesn't make it notable, and it only uses its official website as a source. PeterSymonds | talk 21:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete, given the lack of evidence of coverage by reliable sources. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shiva Chandra[edit]

Lack of notability Matthiasb-DE (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability. Lady Galaxy 17:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As not notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see four Google News references at http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Shiva+Chandra%22+trance , three of which are clearly references to this artist. If the record labels involved are notable, then he passes WP:MUSIC in those grounds as well. Note that there is at least one other potentially notable subject by this name, one of several people who "were shot dead by the Nizam's forces during the Hyderabad Karnataka liberation movement." The Hindu, 2005-07-26 --Eastmain (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Any of these Google references fulfills WP:SOURCES. --Matthiasb-DE (talk) 13:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable person. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gates' Law[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The single given reference supports nothing more than a dictdef. The rest of the article is a complete fabrication. The Jargon File is hardly a reliable reference, anyway. No substantiation of any of the assertions here are available; removing them would leave that dictdef only, so let's just delete it. Mikeblas (talk) 15:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've found two sources for this but they describe two other different laws:

Quattrone's real crime is that he violated the 'Bill Gates law' -- his competence made him too much money too soon - San Jose Mercury News

Dubbed "Gates' law" by Context editor-in-chief Paul Carroll,... the article states that within a decade, business information will become available to everyone, transforming the way corporations compete. - Context magazine.

My version is the richer you are, the more people like to make fun of you. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I can't even find this on really old USENET (Google Groups), which may or may not have been its origin. Although do note that the Jargon File in one form was expanded and published as The (New) Hacker's Dictionary. That wouldn't really make an entry notable by itself, still. --Dhartung | Talk 20:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not really encyclopedic. It's a curious joke, but doesn't seem to be widespread enough to be notable. Ketsuekigata (talk) 02:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Williams (rugby league player born 1966)[edit]

– i123Pie _bio^contribs 15:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nom has confirmed this AfD was made in error.[27] --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Kiwi international rugby league player who played at a world cup, played for many proffesional clubs in Australia.Londo 06 15:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - pressed the wrong button, I use twinkle. – i123Pie _bio^contribs 15:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Keep and close. Afd not properly done, no reason for nomination given. --neonwhite user page talk 16:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename Jason Williams (rugby player) or Jason Williams (athlete) to confirm with Wikipedia MOS. 23skidoo (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and close. No reason given by nom. Lugnuts (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Some info may be useful some somewhere, not clear from the discussion. So I'll move it under Star Fleet Universe/Interstellar Concordium and keep it there for a week or so before actuallly deleting. (similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lyran)- Nabla (talk) 13:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interstellar Concordium (2nd nomination)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This is the second nomination, the earlier afd did not result in a consensus. The article is about a fictional "union of several sentient races" in Star Fleet Universe, which in turn is some sort of offshoot from the Star Trek fictional universe. I think that while Star Fleet Universe may be notable, a nation within it is not - and unsurprisingly, there are no significant coverage in reliable third party sources that are independent of the subject to be found. Hell, the references listed seems to be in-universe themselves. If it has to exist, it would probably be better off with a deletion anyways - the current article is written mainly in-universe, unreferenced and uncited, and not in accordance with the Manual of Style. Finally, I'd like to comment on the previous AfD - while there perhaps wasn't any consensus to delete, there was definitely consensus to not keep. Jobjörn (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I nominated another similar article in the same fictional universe: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lyran Jobjörn (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — non-notable, unsourced gamecruft article. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as described above under "Lyran". All the SFB/SC races should go to one page. And Jack, don't forget that WP:CRUFT isn't a reason for deletion... Hobit (talk) 20:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge OR Redirect to Alpha Octant, where all the factions are listed and briefly described. -- saberwyn 22:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd rather see the creation of List of races and factions in the Star Fleet Universe and the deletion of both Alpha Octant and Omega Octant (but I will wait with proposing the deletion of these two until this afd and this one are closed (and of course I'll only proceed if the result is delete/merge/redirect)). Jobjörn (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 10:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this article's content is almost exclusively made up of in universe plot summary, and has no primary or reliable secondary sources to demonstrate the notability outside the role playing game from which this fictional confederation is derived. This article belongs on a fansite, not Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, possibly merge as above. No secondary sources, but if the existing primary sources could be converted to inline refs the content might find a home in another article. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The info. on this article seems legitimate enough to be absorbed into the larger article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurowoofwoof111 (talk • contribs)

The result was delete. -Nabla (talk) 20:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Carrington[edit]

Does not meet WP:PORNBIO criteria AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pn. PeterSymonds | talk 21:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Aleta ^Sing 11:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the LGBT WikiProject discussion board. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was withdrawn by nominator. (I am Dr. Drakken (talk · contribs) withdrew the AfD but forgot to provide the rationale at the top. I am filling this in for that user. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Ahlam Shibli[edit]

Artist of very questionable notability. Currently, the article consists exclusively of a listing of the artist's exhibitions, all sourced to the artists's own website. The listings themselves include very minor and obscure galleries (e.g: "el Kahif Gallery, Bethlehem"), and consist of the same 3-4 exhibitions listed 5 or more times, for every place it was shown, including said obscure galleries. I suspect the page was created by the artist or a relative/friend editing with a clear COI. I am Dr. Drakken (talk) 14:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 16:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Participated in documenta.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 16:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ethicoaestheticist and the numerous reliable sources discussing the artists' work, many of which have still not been incorporated to the article. I might also note that I created the article and I don't know Ahlam Shibli personally at all. Her name came up when I was doing research for an article on Palestinian art and I went ahead and created a stub entry for her as follow-up to that work. The nominator suggestion that the creator of the article has a "clear COI" stink of bad faith and isn't a good rationale for deletion. Tiamut^talk 23:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, violations of COI are a very valid reason for deletions. My apologies to you - I was not refering to you when I mentioned the COI - I had the anonymous IP who added the bulk of the exhibition list, sourced to the artist's web site, in mind. I am Dr. Drakken (talk) 23:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No personally directed apology is required (though it is appreciated), but checking the history of the article to see who actually created it would be a good idea before jumping to any conclusions about COIs. You should be aware that anonymous IP editors cannot create articles and assuming good faith of your fellow editors is a core principle around here. Because bad faith accusations has a tendency to taint the AfD process, I suggest you strike out the last part of your comment, which you can do by using <s> ...</s> Thanks. Tiamut^talk 23:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Participated in documenta, noticed by the Guardian..I would say this is a pretty obvious keep. Regards, Huldra (talk) 01:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CrystalMUSH[edit]

Non-notable online game, I searched for sources but nothing reliable came out. User:Krator (t c) 14:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The best I could find was a mention of the ports used in relation to network security issues and a snippet in a book. None of the other references I turned up indicate any real-world notability for this game. --jonny-m t 14:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 23:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lorcán Ó Muireadais[edit]

Delete: Fails WP:NOT (notability guidelines) for inclusion. Spaceheatercozitiscold (talk) 13:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Notability is asserted ("founded the first Irish summer school" and the magazine he founded), but very few ghits under that precise spelling. Justin Eiler (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. People may be looking for references under the wrong name. He was born Laurence Patrick Murray and Lorcán Ó Muireadais is a Celtisation. Ulster Biography has it as Lorcan O Muireadhaigh. Also other spelling variations. [28] [29] Project MUSE describes him as a language-activist [30] (you'll need to access from a library with a sub) Note that he has an entry in the Ulster Directory of Biography (one of the longer entries)[31]. Anjouli (talk) 14:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I hope those who have voted !keep will improve and update the article so I can withdraw the nomination. Thanks. Spaceheatercozitiscold (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are persuaded he is notable, then I respectfully request that you withdraw the nomination anyway. I'm sure the article will be improved in time, but if that doesn't happen before Afd closure, is that really grounds to delete?Anjouli (talk) 14:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not persuaded at all and am withdrawing my comments re withdrawal in light of jonny-m t's comments. Spaceheatercozitiscold (talk) 14:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough.Anjouli (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copy vio removed from here. Text can be found at [32]. Anjouli (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I'm sorry to do this so soon after the nominator voiced a desire to withdraw the nomination, but I've looked through everything I can find online using the spellings and diacritical variations mentioned above and can't find anything on this person. Further, the claim to notability--the establishment of the first Irish-language summer school program in the village of Louth--is extremely weak. As far as I can see, then, the subject fails WP:V and WP:N. However, it seems to me that if more information on this subject exists, it would be found offline, which is what prevents me from leaning too strongly towards deletion. Incidentally, has anyone found the name of the school he founded? -- jonny-m t 14:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"can't find anything"? That's odd. I'm getting hits in the hundreds just on Lorcan O Muireadhaigh. Anjouli (talk) 14:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I get 143 hits without quotes (the search subject changes about 9 results in) and 9 hits with quotes...the top one being your comment right above this one, which is just kind of creepy.... --jonny-m t 15:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Creepy indeed :) Anjouli (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's what frustrates me about WP and written references. (See remarks on my user page). If you don't consider the Ulster Directory of Biography reputable, I've just found pretty solid evidence he is notable in "Postcolonial Discourses" (G. Castle). Seems he got around a bit and was a highly proactive Irish activist in his time. But if we are restricted to on-line sources, then I guess the article is a dead duck. Anjouli (talk) 14:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) If you have source, then by all means please update the article! Wikipedia has never restricted itself to online sources, and my comment was meant to encourage someone to find them offline (it's kind of hard for me to find information on a 19th-century Irish priest where I live). If the article is updated to show the notability of the subject, I'll gladly change my opinion per WP:HEY. --jonny-m t 14:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point. However it has always been protocol (and I've been here a while!) that a valid argument against an Afd is to demonstrate that the subject is notable and that references exist. i.e. it is enough to cite them here. They can't be disregarded just because they are not in the article (yet). Nothing personal and I don't mean you, but time and again I'm seeing Afd Delete votes based on things other than notability e.g. the article needs work, the references are not listed in the article, it's a stub, it's POV. None of these are reasone to delete. It's a worrying new trend that never existed on WP a few years ago. Anjouli (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right; those are not valid reasons to delete articles. My request for you to update the article is based on the fact that, simply put, I don't know what your source says until you put it down somewhere. I'm most interested in the claim that he was an Irish activist, but without knowing any specifics I have no way of determining whether that means he simply participated as an individual (not particularly notable) or whether he took a more high-profile role as a leader (notable). I also don't know to what extent the text focuses on him, which is an issue that feeds into both notability and verifiability. --jonny-m t 15:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fair comment. But on the other hand I'm not going to spend a lot of time on an article that might be deleted and in which I'm not really all that interested. If it keeps, I'll have a go at it. Right now my interest was just to try to save what seems like a notable article stuck here in Afd with all the other junk. Anjouli (talk) 16:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Nomination by sockpuppet of banned editor. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per One Night In Hackney. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems you are both right about the nominator's banned status. However, WP:SK doesn't apply in instances where editors add substantive good-faith comments before the nominator's banned status is disclosed, and so I'm sticking with my opinion barring improvement of the article (which I should have tagged for ((Rescue)) sooner) or information about additional sources. --jonny-m t 01:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Empire of Martial Heroes[edit]

I just extensively searched for sources but the only reliable sources I find are directory listings. A website named MMOsite has some coverage of the game, but previous discussions on WP:VG achieved the consensus that this site cannot be used to indicate notability. User:Krator (t c) 13:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 23:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks the multiple reliable sources needed to pass WP:N. Had a look for sources and none came up. If this is the MMOsite piece in question then I wouldn't use it for any purpose, it's a badly written advert as much as anything. Someone another 17:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Wizardman 02:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KMEK[edit]

No FCC record for this station, not finding any references to the station in a Google Search, owner's website (Meeker Broadcasting) is dormant. Rtphokie (talk) 13:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Evidence such as http://www.gilpincountynews.com/20050407/News_writer_hosts_radio.htm seems sufficient to establish that the station once existed. --Eastmain (talk) 14:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 14:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 14:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Perhaps the station was a low-power broadcaster (as well as an internet broadcaster) and therefore didn't require an FCC licence. I found another reference to Meeker Broadcasting at http://www.blacktalkbroadcasting.com/services.html but I remain puzzled about the station and the company. I couldn't find a listing for the station or company using Yellowpages.com --Eastmain (talk) 15:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment even if we can determine that the station and/or it's owner once existed, notability still needs to established. Radio stations are afforded alot of leeway on Wikipedia due to their importance to local communities, let's not stretch that too far. If existence of this station can be established sufficiently along with references to local programming (not just rebroadcast of a parent station or network elsewhere), I'm cool with improving this article with that information, otherwise it should be deleted.--Rtphokie (talk) 15:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The article is in need of overhaul but there is some evidence (such as this Radio Info message board posting: [33]) points to this station having existed at 1080 AM in Denver. A more determined search is called for, possibly by somebody with access to local media archives. - Dravecky (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Doesn't exist in FCC database, and over at fccinfo.com where you can search historical call letters, the calls have never existed on a legal radio station. Smells like a pirate station to me, how notable are those though? Mr mark taylor (talk) 13:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. I could redirect but I don't see a strong reason to. Wizardman 02:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allison Carmichael[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. No significant third party coverage, major awards, showings, etc. Nv8200p talk 13:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Da Vinci Game. I found a couple of articles mentioning her ([34], [35], [36]), but the focus is on the game rather than the creators. There doesn't seem to be enough content in the current article to make it worth merging. --jonny-m t 14:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Delete - little content and not notable. Think outside the box 20:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep (yet some reference should be added; merging is at edtior's discretion) - Nabla (talk) 21:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Falchion (band)[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. No significant third party coverage, awards, national tours, etc. Nv8200p talk 13:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - It seems that a second full-length album has been confirmed as coming out in June (link), which means they fulfill one of the notability requirements of WP:MUSIC. Verifiability may remain a problem, but I'm inclined to leave that question to the Finnish-speakers. --jonny-m t 14:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Err ... the notability requirement of WP:MUSIC referenced above states "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." (emphasis mine) Presuming that this label qualifies, "has released" doesn't mean "will release in a few months." Should this band pass notability standards in the future, there's no reason not to recreate. Right now, there's no criteria upon which to keep. RGTraynor 17:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I figured someone would challenge me on that ;) Given that this album has been announced by multiple sources and is currently listed for sale (thereby avoiding the WP:CRYSTAL issue), I consider the question of whether it has actually made its way into the hands of fans to be academic--after all, that requirement is in place because it can safely be assumed that non-notable bands would have great difficulty fulfilling it, not because a non-notable band suddenly becomes notable the day their second album goes on sale.

I also considered a merge as suggested by Blackmetalbaz below, but given that this group now (in my opinion) fulfills the notability requirements on its own, I'm leaning towards letting it have its own article. --jonny-m t 03:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:MUSIC also states, "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such." So keep or merge with Korpiklaani. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Massacre Records is a well known label, maybe the article needs some references. Keep or merge with Korpiklaani. Tirpes (talk) 05:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitris Pistikos[edit]

Apart from its very poor English, which could be corrected, this article does not list any citations, the external links refer to pages of local only interest, this person is not a recognized writer outside the prefecture he comes from. Odikuas (talk) 01:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I suppose it could be expanded and referanced but notablility is an issue, this person isn't notable outside of his field. Highfields (talk) (contribs) 16:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 13:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is a faithful translation of that in the el.wikipedia.[37]. However, it would benefit from the addition of the kind of sources that we look for on en.wikipedia to demonstrate notability. It is most likely that any sources will be written in Greek and a search using "Δημήτρης Πιστικός" does throw up some results[38] but it may take some time to sift through them. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge. Not quite the participation I would have liked, but I'm not listing it for a fourth time, and anyway merge is a nice harmless close. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grey cycle tour[edit]

While this student cycle tour was without question a laudable fundraising effort, as an article it does not appear to satisfy WP:N and WP:V; no significant secondary sources outside the group's/school's website cited or found. Contested prod. ~Matticus ^U_C 08:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jonny-m t 02:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Grey High School. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or maybe merge to school article due to small size of both. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Wizardman 02:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yaaradi Nee Mohini[edit]

Contested WP:PROD on an article for a film which looks as if it's not even out yet (from the mixed tense in the article), and for which no sources are cited. Most of the article is a completely unreferenced plot summary. Guy (Help!) 12:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is a film added a reference.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Silly nomination. Universal Hero (talk) 13:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep how come a film lack notability ?? even if it does then it has to be fixed not deleted .--Pearll's sun (talk) 19:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 02:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Chen[edit]

This is a slightly strange one. This appears to be a disambiguation page that has growed like Topsy into a three-part article on three different Marias Chen. I reached it via Special:Random and attempted to clean it up. But that failed dismally through lack of sources. I can confirm that:

actress-Maria exists and she appeared in 1995's Miss Hong Kong, but the rest of the information is unverifiable; the result of making this the article would be a sub-stub lacking in a proven assertion of notability
several fashion-Marias exists, the main one being London-based and Taiwan-born, says Google, rather than American; the rest of the information given appears to be a mix of this US-Maria, the Brixton-Maria and a further Maria, Maria Chen-Pascual. So I'm at a loss as to which makes for a referenced, notability-asserted article
corporate-Maria exists and gave a few thousand to John Kerry, but her company doesn't appear notable in and of itself; the sources for corporate-Maria are mostly self-listings in directories and the like. This does not make for a promising article

My gut feeling is that this is a tear-it-up and start-again situation: delete the current overgrown dab page and let editors with sources create one or more of these Marias as required. But there's nothing I could make of them within Wikipedia standards. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 12:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the nominator has summed it up right. JohnCD (talk) 14:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and allow editors to re-create articles with sources per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Summerbirds in the Cellar[edit]

Non-notable band that fails WP:MUSIC altogether. No references, no claims to notability apart from the producer and the Tilly and the Wall connection, so it's probably speediable, but I thought I'd give the creator a chance to convince us otherwise. Closedmouth (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 12:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, and the creator failed to show up. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 14:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Speedied by Ultraexactzz (talk · contribs) as a copyright violation, WP:CSD#G12. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shaikhul Hind[edit]

POV fork.Non notable person.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question. A POV fork of what? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To promote the school .Please read the first line Darul Uloom Deoband, . It is about him that it has been said that the student who first of all opened the book before the teacher, it was Mahmood.This article clearly fails WP:BIO Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please try reading past the first line. The article is about a person who was active in the struggle for Indian independence. How can you call that a fork of an article about a school? Are we to merge all articles on people into the schools they attended? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not written neutral manner as per WP:BIO and WP:NPOV and feel it fails WP:N.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability clearly demonstrated by eight book sources cited in the article, three of which mention the subject in the title. If that's not enough for you then take a look at the Google Books search results. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable independence figure, esp. in Sunni revivalism in the 19th century. He nets gnews hits, a respectable number for a man dead for 90 years.Baka man 18:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Unsure~~ Don't quite know what to make of this article. He may indeed be a notable historical figure, but this needs to be documented much more thoroughly if the article is to be kept. Google Scholar turns out almost nothing about him. The article includes loads of historical material that is at the moment almost completely unsourced. If the article is kept, all this data either needs to be comprehensively sources ASAP or the article has to be reduced to a stab for a while. There are also NPOV issues and substantial English usage problems that need to be addressed as well. Nsk92 (talk) 20:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep per Google Books search results. The article does need substantial cleanup and lots of explicit sourcing. Nsk92 (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but cleanup and wikify. Appears to be a notable figure (backed up by eight independent, written sources). This shouldn't be deleted. PeterSymonds | talk 21:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; way more notable than most of Wikipedia's BIO articles. There's books written about him, he's turning in up in mainstream newspapers in 2007. It definitely needs cleanup, but the article shouldn't be deleted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - as a copyvio from http://www.darululoom-deoband.com/english/introulema/principals1.htm -- Whpq (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, could you please add your signature? Second, the link you provided does not seem to work. Nsk92 (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 02:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IronFlare[edit]

A reasonable search find that this companys only claims to Notability are: "a strategic alliance with Sun Microsystems" and the Orion Application Server, which, as a wikilink, redirects back to this company Article. I contend that this is not enough to satisfy WP's basic WP:Notability standards. I could be wrong, as I cannot read the Swedish news, but doubt any improvment is forthcomming from them as this Article has been here since March of 2005 with no Cites to them as a source so far. Whats your opinion. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 16:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 16:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. —Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 16:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Agree with nominator that the company fails WP:CORP, based upon Google hits. Only reason for weak vote is due to potential for obscure/foreign language news articles that would establish notability, but of course if these were found the article could just be created again. Not much is lost by deleting in its current form. Richc80 (talk) 06:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 11:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this article does provide any context, content, analysis or reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 02:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Characters and Story of Dead Rising[edit]

There's been issues before with Dead Rising characters (Frank West for one); people also seem to be inclined to want to include the "psychopaths" in the game (which are nothing more than glorified boss battles, thus amounting to game guide material). This is not to say that list of prime characters in the game isn't inappropriate, but that list is already in the Dead Rising article, and there's no significant WP:SIZE issues with it; additionally plot sections are never split off from the main work. It is recommended this be deleted as it is redundant presently with the main text, and too heavyweight a page title to require a merge/redirect. MASEM 11:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per Masem. The detailed list of psychopaths is game guide material, which is not appropriate for Wikipedia. The cast list and plot are covered in the main article and do not require further attention in a separate article. Frank west is discussed in the main article and no further information can be added that would warrant a separate article. Hewinsj (talk) 20:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 05:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant to the main article. Plots aren't usually spun out from video game articles, and I don't see the need for this one to have been. There are few genuine characters in the game, and they're hardly so deep as to necessitate a separate article. Most are just survivors or psychopaths as laid out here and in the game article. If Frank West ever returns there may be a need for a character article, but that's an 'if and when' discussion. Someone another 13:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Wizardman 20:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moiz Hussain[edit]

Non-notable hypnotist. Fails WP:BIO Fritzpoll (talk) 11:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom non notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom and Pharaoh of the Wizards. Not notable. Think outside the box 20:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable unless someone can come up with secondary sources. —BradV 15:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a lack of independent sources to assert importance. --Stormbay (talk) 02:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Mesa[edit]

(Unexplained) contested prod. Fails WP:BIO#Athletes as he has never played in a fully professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes he was a member of a first divion swiss side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elomen76 (talk • contribs)

The article (which you wrote) actually states that he never played for them due to work permit issues. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—He signed a development contract with the New York Red Bulls. I'm not sure that is sufficient qualification to be considered notable. If he ever starts or subs into a pro game, then I think he may deserve an article. Meanwhile this page should probably just be archived somewhere.—RJH (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted articles can be easily restored by an admin, there's no need to archive them. --Angelo (talk) 10:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ATHLETE BanRay 16:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Wizardman 20:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MAngband[edit]

A game with no reliable third-party sources to assert notability. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I merged relevant content to Angband (computer game)#Community. User:Krator (t c) 13:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 23:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks independent notability or any reliable third-party sources. Nandesuka (talk) 12:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Angband (computer game). Independently this is not very notable, and few sources are available. It should be covered under the main article. —BradV 15:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge and Redirect...not enough for an article. --Stormbay (talk) 02:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus. I find it impossible to reach consensus based on a nomination that does not actually state why the article is at AfD. the_undertow ^talk 22:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Older people’s associations[edit]

Google says no to this one. αѕєηιηє ^t/_c 11:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Paste (talk) 11:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Anjouli is absolutely correct, I was being lazy as I was so surprised to see such an article here when I would have thought that it would have been speedily deleted. We may as well have articles such as :- 'Sports Clubs' are clubs where people play sport!
  - Comment Sports club exists (yes, I know - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). I don't think that last point is a great argument for this article being deleted anyway, as it's not simply saying "An older people's association is an association of older people" - if it was, it would have been speedied under CSD A3. — Matt Eason ^{(Talk  Contribs)} 14:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May i suggest marking it as a stubrather than deleting? Still new to wikipedia editing so will leave final decision to you guys. Maxthetax1974 (talk) 11:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What specifically about the Google results says we should delete? Hit count alone is not a valid indicator of notability, per WP:GOOGLE. There may also be a bias given the article's subject. These groups are also known as elderly people's associations. — Matt Eason ^{(Talk  Contribs)} 12:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:RS and WP:V in its current form. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom.
Comment. All of the delete votes above (and the original nomination) are classic examples of Arguments to Avoid in Delete Discussions WP:AADD Anjouli (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There seems to be currency for this term especially in Bangladesh and Thailand, where they provide community services, apart from being a social network a la US "Senior Centers" and the like. Needs sources and context, desperately. --Dhartung | Talk 20:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced and unverifiable in its current form, substub, dictionary material almost. If an article about this is to be written, this is not it.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legendo Entertainment[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Previous AfD resulted in no consensus. The company remains non-notable, and fails WP:CORP. The company is mentioned in the article for its only notable game The Three Musketeers (video game), but there is still no coverage in reliable third-party sources to establish notability. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While they seem to have produced some notable video game, that does not merit an article about the company itself. The game is notable, it's authors are not. Jobjörn (talk) 23:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 05:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Merge verifiable and relevant content to The Three Musketeers (video game). —BradV 15:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Kininmonth[edit]

Article about a politician based entirely upon primary sources. Google throws up a lot of blogs/unreliable sources, but reliable sources appear to be limited to passing mentions only. He does appear to have a job in health, but I can't find any reliable reference to him being the Labour candidate for Coromandel. Not that that would make him automatically notable anyway. Prod was removed by author with a request for an explanation. Also note the author admits to having a conflict of interest. Happy to withdraw my nomination if I am shown reliable sources. J Milburn (talk) 11:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable, COI issues. Being a candidate does not confer notability, see WP:BIO#Politicians - for good reason, otherwise Wikipedia would become an election hoarding. JohnCD (talk) 14:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect - to Candidates in the New Zealand general election 2008 by electorate - WP:BIO is quite clear that candidacy for political office does not confer notability, and nothing else seems notable. dramatic (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am unable to locate any coverage by third party sources independent of the subject; accordingly, he fails WP:N. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - will be notable if he wins, but not yet. --Helenalex (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. dramatic (talk) 23:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Keep - The Hugh Kininmonth article offers valuable information for the electors in the Coromandel electorate. The nature of New Zealand general elections with respect to electorates is the selection of candidates - not of incumbents versus opposition. Each electorate election brings forth a 'clean slate' with options being made primarily of candidates. Hence forth, Mr Kininmonth's candidacy does grant notability in the same way that Mrs Goudie's candidacy does. Within the electorate the contest is of notable worth - as expressed in the local media. Unfortunately the local media does not have an internet presence, if it did then I could cite the articles in the Hauraki Herald as a third party source. I can refer you to David Farrar's blog, www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008_election_candidates , whose candidate list is reliable and accurate. As a result of the Electoral Finance Act the major parties are hesitant to use their website for candidate info which resulted in the creation of Mr Kininmonth's blog. I implore the editors of this site to allow the retention of this article. Sugnaguy | (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2008

Comment The "valuable information" that he is a candidate is already in Wikipedia at the appropriate location: Candidates in the New Zealand general election 2008 by electorate. Note that in accordance with guidelines, Candidates who have no prior notability are not linked to articles. Sandra Goudie has a Wikipedia article because she is a Member of Parliament. Her article does not even mention her candidacy for this year's election, and any attempt to use her article (or that of any incumbent MP) for electioneering is likely to be promptly reverted - so there is no "advantage" to incumbents who have Wikipedia articles over candidates who should not. The reasoning is simple. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and all content should be assessed with a long term perspective. If Hugh is not successful, then in 20 years time will the fact that he was once a candidate be noteworthy? No. Just as we do not have a biographies of all the unsuccessful Social Credit candidates from 1975. Finally, references in Wikipedia are NOT limited to web links only. Please provide the date on which the candidacy was announced in the Hauraki Herald and I will replace the non-neutral reference in the List of Candidates article with this independent one.dramatic (talk) 08:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The purpose of the article is not electioneering, but exists as an affirmation of Mr Kininmonth's candidacy. Re Hauraki Herald, I will track down the date of publishing for you and leave it on your talk page when sought. Additionally, the blog post that I linked to as a reference is the press release which was passed to the Hauraki Herald for their article - it is therefore the original source with which Hugh's candidacy was announced and subsequently posted to the public domain. It is my opinion that in this case the candidacy of Hugh Kininmonth is of notability, ergo the existence of said article is worthwhile. The notability of a failed candidate in twenty years time is questionable, I adhere to that. However, it is logical to argue that the candidacy of Mr Kininmonth is notable from this time to the election and sometime thereafter even if his election is a failure. An election is of considerable notability, the involved candidates providing the bulk of that. It comes down to something rather simple; the notability of an article exists only for those whose interest dictates their viewing of such an article - the electors of Coromandel have an interest in the candidates of their electorate which provides sufficient notability. Sugnaguy (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2008

Response - A website whose content is under the control of the subject of an article is not admissible as a reference because it cannot possibly be unbiased. Your claims about notability run against the guidelines established by consensus. If you wish to change that guideline, go and argue that point first, but I doubt if you'll have any luck, and Wikipedia is not in the business of creating "temporary" articles. Note that I have recommended redirection - so that if someone comes to Wikipedia and types Hugh Kininmonth in the search box, they will be taken to the Coromandel entry on the list of candidates for this election - which seems to encompass your goals for this article dramatic (talk) 10:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response - Redirection is satisfactory and therefore makes the article obsolete. Cheers for doing that. Sugnaguy (talk) 11:06, 25 March 2008

Further response: you may think that the mere fact of Mr Kininmonth's candidacy is notable, but the result of long debate and precedent as established in Wikipedia's guideline at WP:BIO#Politicians explicitly says it is not. And are you really suggesting that Wikipedia is the only way the electors of Coromandel can discover who their candidates are? JohnCD (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response - I am not, nor have I ever suggested that Wikipedia is the sole source of affirmation of candidates. However, Wikipedia is - with all its flaws - a trusted source of information. Preferable to many people for quick facts; local candidates being a sourced quick fact. As stated in my response to dramatic, I am happy with a redirection to the Coromandel entry in the list of candidates. Subsequently conceding that the article may be deleted due to overruling guidelines and a satisfactory compromise. Sugnaguy (talk) 11:06, 25 March 2008

~~Keep~~ Why not give them a chance? Seems at least as interesting as many included, and it is not as though Wikipedia criteria are followed in practice. See the Denis Dutton entry for example? Kininmonth is an interesting name, doesn't he get points for that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.15.223 (talk) 13:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policies are followed too laxly, but that doesn't mean that we should allow the policies and guidelines to be ignored willy-nilly. Take a look at this essay. J Milburn (talk) 13:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We have clear precedence that candidates are not notable for being candidates. If he wins, this can be revisited. Eusebeus (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Dramatic, with no prejudice against re-creation if he wins. Grutness...wha? 23:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 02:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sabyasachi Chakravarthy[edit]

Not a notable article. Dabbydabby (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, I was unable to find any secondary sources on this person, however it may be that they exist, but are not in English but rather in an Indian language. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 11:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. No comments in 2 weeks = no one cares. Wizardman 02:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beautifully Broken[edit]

A song that was only released for airplay purposes, it fails WP:Music and it is poorly written. Surfer-boy94 (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 11:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete and actually it meets also CSD A1/A3 per lack of content other then the images.--JForget 23:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Largest cities in Central Europe[edit]

Not really encyclopaedia material, just a series of images. αѕєηιηє ^t/_c 10:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Central Europe is a fuzzy designation anyway. Further, the article's content is already included as Central Europe#Largest cities in Central Europe.--MrFish^{Go Fish} 14:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - at present, it's an exact duplicate of what's already in Central Europe#Largest cities. It may be intended as the starting point for a fork article, but I think it would be a pointless one, we don't need an intermediate level between Central Europe and the individual city articles. JohnCD (talk) 14:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. This is just five pictures, nothing more. This really isn't encyclopedic and it's a duplicate of this. Doc Strange^{Mailbox Orbitting Black Hole}Strange Frequencies 16:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing but a gallery and per JohnCD ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 19:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge with List of countries in Europe or where ever found fit , but if consensus isn't reached then this article can be deleted due to lack of details .--Pearll's sun (talk) 19:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - galleries are bad enough but a page with nothing but a gallery is ridiculous. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an arbitrary collection of information. `'Míkka >t 15:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. No context. Think outside the box 20:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete g3 vandalism, image also deleted. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Hands Of God Image[edit]

Seems to be an unnotable hoax. αѕєηιηє ^t/_c 10:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable hoax. Ho-hum. I can photoshop too. Big deal. -- Alexf⁴² 11:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Goatse-style hoax. --Kateshortforbob 12:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Yeah, I've run into this more as a Goatse joke than a "God" image anyway. Non-notable hoax. Mazca (talk) 13:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as vandalism; obvious hoax. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. There seemed to be some support building for userfication, but then the article's primary author chimed in to request deletion. If anybody else wants to work on it in their userspace, let me know on my talk page and I'll happily userfy it for you. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rob McDowall[edit]

I still fail to see how this article asserts notability. I originally nom'd it for CSD but that was probably a little over the top - this seems better. I know the policies and what makes someone notable, but I still do not understand why this person is notable at all. If you are going to vote keep, could you at least point out where it asserts itself? Thanks. αѕєηιηє ^t/_c 10:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rob McDowall is a 23 year old who has setup a peer to peer support site Health Thru Understanding which has been providing help and support to people in crisis and with a wide variety of health issues. Its self funded and has over 20,000 posts. He is a registered counsellor and provides free telephone crisis counselling to members of the LGBT community and engages with the police and local LGBT networks to maximise the number of incidents which are reported to the Third Party Reporting channels. He represents people at Tribunals and enquiries. He has strong links with Lord Waheed Alli (the UK's 1st openly gay peer), MSP Ross Finnie, MSP Doctor Bill Wilson, MEP Alyn Smith, MEP Struan Stevenson who all support him and the My Blood Not Good Enough Campaign. He started the campaign on gay blood and has given evidence to parliamentary hearings and has been called to give oral evidence to the parliament in April 2008. He has been invited to London on the 4th of April to launch a Young Professionals Network and develop a coallititon with UK unions with regards to LGBT policy. He launched the VOTE16 campaign and is campaigning to give 16 year olds the vote. McDowall also has been involved in the launch of the SaveJoJo campaign and direct policy discussions with the home office in relation to LGBT persons at risk of deportation to countries they face being killed or tortured in. He has appeared on Radio 5 Live and Clyde1 FM talking about his campaigns and providing counselling during the Clyde1's LateCall Show. Np097264 ^t

I think it is borderline. There may be some notability in the blood petition and campaign. It has been documented in the gay press[39] and has apparently been supported by some Scottish politicians. Googling did not turn up much more than this. The author (see above) has been trying to improve the article but he keeps falling over his lack of experience with Wikipedia and getting into trouble. He would have been better off learning the ropes a bit before making a new article but I am not sure how he came to get a short ban. Nothing he has done looks like intentional vandalism to me. He got stuck on the references part. I told him to add references and he fell over the ban on Bebo links. The blood campaign actually hangs out on Bebo, just as some politicians hang out on MySpace, so I don't think he was spamming a personal blog or acting in bad faith by adding it. On the minus side, I think he may be too close to the subject to be objective. I am going to call it a very weak keep, for now, and suggest that the author be allowed to work on improving it on the understanding that it is slimmed down to only cover what is documented in reliable sources. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does lots of very nice things, but isn't notable. Possibility exists that one or more of his groups could pass WP:ORG, though. --Dhartung | Talk 20:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP

i know of the site health thru understanding and am familiar with what it provides to people. it is my contention that this is a very notable venture that is much needed by the people who use it. for the members who participate on a site such as this, it can mean the difference between having and not having the inner strength necessary for the challenges faced by the people there. in a world that is so full of self centredness i believe that it should be spoken of widely when an individual takes it upon themself to provide such a necessary platform for people facing challenges such as theirs. it is a totally selfless act and should be commended not considered for deletion.

this leads me to the subject of equal rights now. we are living in a violent and judgemental world today. we are much better than we were years ago and will get better in time. but that can only happen when we have open communication and information. i truly believe that much of the prejudice and judgement people feel and express comes from ignorance and lack of knowledge. by deleting this communication it will set ourselves backwards. why delete something so positive??????

i consider what robert has done to be extremely notable and commendable.

with thanks, roseyoneRosyone (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second edit Dlohcierekim 17:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Please understand that we are not making a judgement on the cause here. We are making a judgement on whether it has reached a degree of notability that it belongs in an encyclopaedia. A lot of good people and things are not in Wikipedia and a lot of bad people and things are. Notability is defined objectively by coverage by things like independent reputable sources so that is what we have to look at. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP

I agree with roseyone! We need more young people with his drive to be role models for our youth and society in general. We need more people in this world reaching out to make a difference in our lives. What would be served by deletion? Thanks, toomuchforme —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toomuchfor me (talk • contribs) 12:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Toomuchfor me (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --jonny-m t 16:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

userfy Let's userfy it to the author's space and let him work on it there. Right now I'm not seeing a real claim of notability per WP:BIO but I'm willing to give him some time. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
userfy I was thinking delete, but JoshuaZ makes a very compelling argument. I would like to see this get some more time without losing the information. Mstuczynski (talk) 04:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

just delete it all ready. I am sick to death of this nonsense. I thought I would put it in as he was notable to the gay community in Scotland and has done a lot of things to change Scotland and the people who live in it but I cannot waste any more of my time to keep this going or have people snipe! How many people do you know that do all this??? None! DELETE --Np097264 16:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Np097264 (talk • contribs)

Delete unless it is improved. Truly, a worthy individual. However, not an encyclopedic one. Being noble, good, or altruistic is not sufficient for an encyclopedia article. Dlohcierekim 17:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete through CSD:G1, patent nonsense.--Alasdair 11:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emo hobos[edit]

PROD removed when a dictionary reference was added for the well-established word "hobo", but none is provided for "emo hobo". I can find a few references in blogs and the like, and there is an artist who calls herself "Emo Hobo", but this is a neologism and Wikipedia is not a dictionary or guide to slang. JohnCD (talk) 10:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Made up by kids. Obvious non-notable neologism. -- Alexf⁴² 11:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable neologism, unable to find any sources to verify the definition. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 11:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Klinger[edit]

Little more than a resume, admittedly created by the subject himself: [40]. Lots of assertions and unreferenced credits and plenty of hopes and some crystal-balling, but no hard, verifiable, third-party sources. Qworty (talk) 09:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Written by the person himself, thus violating WP:AB and WP:COI. Person himself is not notable. Thaurisil^t_c 09:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN autobiography, verging on SPAM. JohnCD (talk) 10:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 02:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tunapuna Seventh-day Adventist Church[edit]

Someone has copied the church schedule from the church bulletin board and posted it here, trying to pass it off as an encyclopedia article. The article was created by a Single Purpose Account apparently connected with the church: [41]. I'm sorry, but in terms of notability, it's simply not enough to be "the second oldest adventist church in the country of Trinidad and Tobago." Qworty (talk) 09:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; without sources, and for a church whose claim is to be second in an area of a million people, it's just not WP:V or notable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable individual church. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Even putting the sockpuppeting issues aside, none of the keep comments advanced any policy-based opinions. See WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFF for more information. --jonny-m t 04:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frankie Loscavio[edit]

A jack of many trades who has failed to achieve verifiable, third-party notability in any one of them. The article was created recently by a Single Purpose Account. Possibly self-promotion. And may be associated with self-promoter Tymm Hoffman, whose article is offered for deletion below, and who tried to insert himself into the Frankie Loscavio article. Qworty (talk) 09:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. No coverage in independent, reliable sources. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all Google throws up is www.loscavio.com, frankieloscavio.blogspot.com, www.loscaviomedia.com and the like. Looks like promotion, probably self-promotion like the one below. JohnCD (talk) 14:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - this is not self promotion it is historical regarding the sport of rollerblading. The people mentioned in this article where also influential professional aggressive skaters who helped create the sport of aggressive rollerblading. I did some checking and can some one please tell me how FL Studio is on this site and not self promotion amongst many others I have found. I am simply trying to document the history of aggressive rollerblading. I think you may be assuming you know about this history when in fact you don't and based on the searches returned in google how are you supposed to know this since you have never participated in this historical movement? - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/is-something-fundamentally-wrong-with-wikipedia-governance-processes/2008/01/07((Frankie Loscavio|65.83.231.100)) 20:03, 25 March 2008 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.83.231.100 (talk • contribs) 21:03, March 25, 2008

Keep - I think anything regarding the history of a sport is relevant - just because you guys can't find it on google doesn't make it irrelevant. — Tymm.hoffman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 20:08, 25 March 2008

*Keep- I was a pro skater for Skatepile.com and Frankies contribution changed the way we handled our culture and commerce in rollerblading. Since Frankie has left our sport, there is not another online shop that has been able to replicate the simplicity and consistency of Frankie design and marketing.— Kingdirty (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 20:21, 25 March 2008

- [citations needed] STYROFOAM1994^talk Review me! 22:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article seems very promotional and the subject does not appear to satisfy the guideline WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - I've been a professional rollerblader for over 10 years now. Frankie Loscavio is a pioneer of our sport, and has set some of the ground work for what has become known as rollerblading today. As a valuable part of our history, I don't think there should be any discussion in reguards to deleting this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.163.219 (talk • contribs) 23:19, March 25, 2008

Delete per the above rationales of the people I agree with. STYROFOAM1994^talk Review me! 22:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:BIO. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 22:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Would you pull the Dogtown Boys and Tony Hawk out of skateboarding history? Of coarse not. This is a solid piece of rollerblading history. Plus, there is no benefit for him to self advertise, as he is retired from rollerblading and skatepile has changed owners.— 24.152.163.219 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

- Tony Hawk has received media coverage; this perso has not. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 22:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have started a sock puppetry case involving this AFD. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 22:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am not a sock puppet. The comments above reflect the voices of other REAL skaters in this industry and I am offended that this process has gone this way. I would like to know who if anyone wanting this post deleted actually know anything about this topic. I also would like to know if this is how every article is judged? This seems to be a very elitist process and founded on pure speculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milkshoes (talk • contribs) 23:46, March 25, 2008
- We are basing this on consensus and notability and a bunch of other things. It is not elitist. Plus, you don't have evidence that those other accounts are "REAL" skaters in the industry. STYROFOAM1994^talk Review me! 22:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment - Then how can a page like this Tony Stokes be allowed? Did he contribute to the foundation of football industry like I did for the rollerblading industry? Appears not based on the historical data displayed on your wiki. I am really astonished at this process. What will allow this post to be accepted? I recently added a new reference and there will be more to come and yes from REAL people like the ones commenting before me. I'm not sure how to be a part of this club but in all fairness I was only trying to state historical data here. But maybe Tony Stokes knows something I don't? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.83.231.100 (talk • contribs) 00:02, March 26, 2008

Tony Stokes does not promote himself and he has a good number of credible references. STYROFOAM1994^talk Review me! 23:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Anyone considering this for deletion please watch this as this is a monumental and historic video in the industry of aggressive rollerblading: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5mYeNXh45Y&feature=related. This was also added as a reference as well. Other credible sources will come. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milkshoes (talk • contribs) 00:10, March 26, 2008
- That's not really credible. STYROFOAM1994^talk Review me! 23:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The best thing you can do is to find reliable sources, i.e. those that have a reputation for editorial fact checking, that are independent of Frankie and address him and what he has done for rollerblading in some detail. The youtube clip isn't a credible source. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment - I will get those reputable sources to post soon. ie Daily Bread Magazine. Atlanta Journal and Constitution, Cherokee Tribune, Video Groove Magazine and so on... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.83.231.100 (talk • contribs) 00:37, March 26, 2008

OK. Good quality, solid referencing are what's needed. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This man is an absolute legend in Rollerblading. You aren't going to change Wikipedia into the Britannica. Let Frankie Loscavio has his stake in something that is rightfully his. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WestonAldridge (talk • contribs) 01:21, March 26, 2008

Are there any reliable sources so prove this? JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 00:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Possible Hoax If Frankie really were "an absolute legend in Rollerblading," then Googling his name with rollerblading should produce more than 23 measly hits: [42] And of those few hits, the overwhelming majority consists of Wiki mirrors, personal blogs, and one YouTube video that has the word "Hoax" in its name. I think we have objective reason to doubt whether Frankie was ever involved in rollerblading at all. Certainly we have established that he is in no way notable in the field. In fact, if anyone has evidence that this article constitutes a WP:HOAX, I would be all ears. Qworty (talk) 00:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Frankie Loscavio is one of the original professional rollerbladers. Just search google for Frankie Loscavio Rollerblade and you'll see for yourself. The sport of rollerblading is so young and niche, that a lot of early innovators like Frankie don't get the credit and coverage they deserve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.224.22 (talk • contribs) 02:31, March 26, 2008

I don't see any reliable 3rd party sources. They are all just personal pages. STYROFOAM1994^talk Review me! 01:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would like you to recruit an expert on the subject. Someone who wiki knows is a "Valid Expert". Get Arlo Eisenberg to comment since you have already approved him on this wiki and he is good friend with Frankie. However maybe you think it's a spoof still even after that? I think the comment above about the word "hoax" being in the name means this data is a hoax is an insult to the industry, the people who made the "Hoax 2" skate video and everyone else who participated in that industry changing video at the time, and I feel that that comment makes a mockery of this forum for historical data entry. As for the search results does SEO or engine placement or totals mean that this history never happened? Not at all. Milkshoes (talk) 01:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Milkshoes (talk) 02:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It did happen, but I don't think you're getting the point. We're saying that the history is not notable enough as it never came out in major 3rd party presses. Also, it is discouraged if one writes/supports an article about his friend, namely Arlo and Frankie in this case. Please see above for more information. STYROFOAM1994^talk Review me! 02:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Per Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Archive/March 2008#User:Milkshoes, it looks like User:Enigmaman has struck out the !votes and comments by sock puppets in this discussion. -- Kesh (talk) 02:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. This could pretty much be closed as Delete. Enigma ^message 02:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tymm Hoffman[edit]

Blatant self-promotion, admittedly started by the subject himself. This was speedied [43] shortly before it was recreated. Let's give it a very good salting this time. Qworty (talk) 08:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. No coverage by independent, reliable sources. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self promotion. Salt if created again. JohnCD (talk) 14:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. STYROFOAM1994^talk Review me! 22:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete No notability plus WP:COI violations. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 22:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - wow - this is pretty incredible. Honestly - you guys can delete this thing at any point you'd like - I am a bit taken back by it and can't wait to write about the last 4 hours on WikiPedia elsewhere - you guys are a bunch of elitist judgmental techies getting your rocks off passing judgment on what you think is accurate based on what you think you know about a subject. Un.Be.Liev.Able — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tymm.hoffman (talk • contribs) 00:41, March 26, 2008
Comment - you guys do know what most educational institutions think of the credibility of Wikipedia, right? I at least hope you can see the irony in all of this... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tymm.hoffman (talk • contribs) 00:41, March 26, 2008

One of the problems that Wikipedia has is with articles that has content that can't be independently verified. Who is going to believe what has been written? If you can come up with reliable sources, i.e. those that have a reputation for editorial fact checking, that are independent of you and address you and what you have done in some detail, that'll go some way towards getting this article kept. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So Mr. Hoffman actually believes that he can come onto Wikipedia and write an article about himself, present no evidence whatsoever that he is notable in any way at all, and then we're all supposed to take him at his word about his importance and then get on our knees to commend him for his unestablished notability? Talk about "Un.Be.Liev.Able." Well, that's not the way it works around here, Mr. Hoffman. We discourage people from writing articles about themselves: WP:AUTO. The reason we discourage it is to save YOU from the kind of experience you are now having. Your arguments are not persuasive. If you have WP:RS that indicate that you are notable for something, by all means present those WP:RS now. Obviously, that would be the only reasonable thing to do in a situation like this one. Qworty (talk) 00:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'll excuse Mr. Qworty for his ignorance, being that he is an "editor" on an encyclopedia and not a dictionary and may not fully understand the definition of said word - but I don't believe I have engaged in an argument of any sort. Matter of fact, I think all I said was "Please hurry up and delete this ridiculous thread of nonsense." I don't know that I need saved from any experience I am having - this has been entertaining if nothing else. What does an argument entail in one of the 40+ countries you have enjoyed and relaxed in Mr. Qworty? And forgive me - for I didn't know encyclopedias were only for "notable" entities. Encyclopedia Britannica has an entry for grass. The green stuff commonly growing in yards across the United States and the world itself (as Mr. World Traveler Qworty could surely attest to). But I am sensing that Wikipedia isn't really an encyclopedia at all. It's a pompous collection of wanna be writers who probably couldn't get published anywhere else so they've built their own little network of pompous, arrogant, self-righteous wankers spewing judgment on others. And the funny thing is - that is fine - I'm cool with that. But why be so defensively arrogant about your little club? Just delete my entry - I put it there to help with SEO as recommended by someone - I'll give you nerdy little guys that - you know how to land on a search engine. Good day to each and everyone of you - hopefully someone other than Qworty, who has no sense of how to carry himself, will step forward to offer a shred of saving grace for this wickedly miserable and mundane site. Is this really what all the hype is about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.153.214 (talk • contribs) 03:00, March 26, 2008
- Grass is notable because it is a very widespread type of vegetation. Also, please don't be incivil here. Let's stay on the focus. For more information on notability, see WP:Notability and that should give you a better sense of what is going on in the deletion process. STYROFOAM1994^talk Review me! 02:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - To be honest - this whole thing just piqued my curiosity in the nature of people - why some go about things with such hostility and others, such as Malcolmxl5, carry themselves in a kinder, gentler, more mature way. As long as Wikipedia has stupidity-spewing users like Qworty i can't see how they will ever, ever gain credibility in the educational instituion arena - I have seen it time and time again when very educated people dismiss ANYTHING that comes from Wikipedia - people at Technological Research Institutions that have a ton of research background and credibility find this site less credible than most gossip sites. Sad but true. But I am sure you guys know this. Malcolmxl5 - keep doing what you do - you are a tiny little piece of reason in a sea of nonsense. And styrofoam1994 - don't call me uncivil without taking note of Qworty and his "civil approach"
- I was referring to both of you when I said "don't be uncivil". Plus, Qworty was right. I guess he was a bit frustrated about these cases or something. As for the differences of personalities, that's because they're different people. STYROFOAM1994^talk Review me! 02:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - wow - I gotta say guys - Kudos! I haven't been as interested in anything online since - gosh - I dunno - maybe Netflix? The human nature of things here is amazing. Anyways - I just looked over all of the QWORTY Talk stuff - and it seems Wikipedia would be MUCH MUCH better off - at least in the arena of credibility and and promotion of cooperation - without someone like that running around posting the type of stuff he does. Just my opinion as I slowly start to understand this sub-culture of Wikipedia.
- No personal attacks, please. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 02:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- dont think I personally attacked - just stated what anyone can go read on his talks page. thats all.
Comment - I guess I'll just end it like this - because honestly I would rather practice my writing in another venue - but I think (and this is just my opinion) that Wikipedia is missing the boat by aggressively attacking things that they can't find references to on the internet and calling them false, hoaxes, irrelevant, unworthy, etc. First off - it just shines a terrible light on the editors who make up this "team" of folks at Wikipedia. It paints them as elitists. You can say it doesn't all day long but at the end of the day it's really just you saying it doesn't. When it really does. And second - knowing how Wikipedia works - i think they stand to miss out on the numerous links a fully-filled out history of The Dyslexics would have encompassed. We have had music on Fox Sports, on the Xbox 360, on Super Bowl Sunday - we have done shows with several large bands and been involved in other projects as well that may never have a reference on the Internet. But that doesnt mean that they didn't happen. We were part of an underground hip-hop independent label that formed in 2000 and has been a major part of sending an artist on tour to Africa and South America. We have had videos on MTV2 and created a theme song for a major sports team. But I guess if we didn't make sure we had optimized all of these endeavors so that they fell at the top of search engine lists then the Wiki-reality is that they are irrelevant, nonexistent or not worthy. I don't want to get in to a battle of words with a bunch of guys over this so I would recommend a very speedy deletion and I will just go about chronicling our history elsewhere. Thanks for the insight (brutal as it may have been) in to the inner workings of this company. it's been very interesting.
- First off, please see WP:COI. In response, Wikipedia requires reliable sources so information can be verified. I cannot find any reliable sources about this band.JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 02:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said - i am fine with you guys deleting this - doesn't need to be some long drawn out thing. I'd say shame on us for focusing on making music, practicing, mastering DVDs and CD and the such and not focusing enough on getting our stuff online. But again - not trying to draw this out - so go ahead - delete me - salt me - whatever it is that has to happen. I don't need to see WP:COI or any other wiki-links because I am not trying to persuade, argue, defend - anything. Just go ahead and can it. Again - thanks for the insight...

The result was merge. Wizardman 02:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain Ridge Middle School[edit]

non-notable middle school, doing what a middle school does, article's author knows the article is unnecessary, as they wrote the merge tag and source tag right into the article when they wrote it! (that's a new one). Wikipedia is not a directory, and if the author wanted it merged, he could just have made a redirect tag. I'm in favor of flat deletion. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 07:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 08:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 08:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Academy School District 20. Verifiable content is worth merging, perhaps after moving it first. There are at least 3 Mountain Ridge Middle Schools in the U.S., 2 in Colorado alone. • Gene93k (talk) 08:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Twenty Years 09:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Academy School District 20 and redirect. Plenty of mergeable content. TerriersFan (talk) 14:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Mountain Ridge Middle School page is of use, as it complies with the Wikischool project. It also provides information for one of the top schools in Colorado. There is only one Mountain Ridge Middle School in the state of Colorado. There is also an article for another asd20 middle school, Eagleview Middle School, and the article serves the same purpose as the Mountain Ridge Middle School page. SherAbdul8 (talk) 06:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Academy School District 20 and redirect, per TerriersFan. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 06:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timelord (band)[edit]

Band does not pass formal notability criteria (zero media coverage, less than 2 full-size album released). "References" section is just a link to their MySpace site. I nominate this article to be deleted according to WP:NN, WP:SPAM GreyCat (talk) 07:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I lack sufficient knowledge to cast an informed decision, but should this article be deleted I recommend it be changed to a redirect to The KLF, which released a hit single under the name "The Timelords" and this is a reasonable alternative search parameter. 23skidoo (talk) 13:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that "Timelord (band)" equals "The Timelords". Besides, I guess it's a fair chance that "Timelord (band)" may suffice notability guidelines in future - and we'll write a good, full article about them :) It's just too early for now. --GreyCat (talk) 20:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Merge (and redirect) into the appropriate character lists where I am assuming that this is done by someone familiar with the series. Tikiwont (talk) 09:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joyce Barry[edit]

This article and all other articles nominated in this deletion discussion do not meet WP:FICT. The guideline states "fictional concepts can be presumed notable if they have received significant real-world coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" this article does not meet this. For similar case see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Armstrong (Home and Away) and all the other fictonal character pages that were deleted as they wern't considered notable (you can see all of them on that deletion discussion page) this is an issue of the relevant wikipedia policy, and in my oppinon this article does not meet WP:FICT and hence should be deleted. Printer222 (talk) 05:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following related articles are also nominated for deletion for the exact same reasons as the original article is being nominated for. These articles include

The discussion regarding the deletion of all these articles should take place here. Printer222 (talk) 05:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 08:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: These are all characters from the Australian TV series Prisoner. --Canley (talk) 08:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into one article unless someone can establish individual notability... Hobit (talk) 02:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm comfortable with the merger suggested (and done?) by Paul20070. Hobit (talk) 18:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a combination article as a first step. if one or more of these are particularly notable and some tv critic has written about them, which might well be the case if it really is a major series, then expand again that one or more into a full article.DGG (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect The information could be merged (respectively) into the following articles:
Prisoner characters - Inmates
Prisoner characters - Prison Staff
Prisoner characters - Background Prison Officers
Prisoner characters - Miscellaneous

Paul20070 (talk) 23:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Prisoner was a high profile TV drama at the time which was character driven. Characters such as Bea Smith and Joan Ferguson were highly notable in their own right and written about alot in magazines at the time. The problem here is recentism more than anything else. At a minimum, redirect into characters as per preceding entry. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete a1 for lack of content -- all it says is "this is a software program that hasn't been written yet". NawlinWiki (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whiteboard Program[edit]

Non-notable software, under construction or not. "Whiteboard is in its construction stages.". Corvus cornix_talk 06:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreed, the article's very content suggests failing of WP:WEB and WP:PRODUCT. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 06:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - no assertion of notability. Springnuts (talk) 06:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very speedy delete. Not even close to being notab;e. I'm finding that the ((underconstruction)) tag is being abused by those posting articles that should be speedy deleted. This qualifies as such. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no speedy deletion criterion for software. Corvus cornix_talk 06:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corvus is absolutely correct - no SD criteria covers software. Could have been prodded, but sometimes per WP:COMMON it's better to bypass it (as the author typically removes it) and go straight to AfD. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 07:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 06:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete if it's possible. --GreyCat (talk) 07:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's more information here than on the program's home page, and given that nothing's been released yet, it's impossible for us to say anything about it. Zetawoof_(ζ) 08:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Nothing 444 12:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable with no assertion of notability. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 13:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. nomination withdrawn. Bduke (talk) 06:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Anglo-Catholic Churches[edit]

Springnuts (talk) 06:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for nomination: Failed ProD. Not compliant with WP:LISTS, rather it is a DIRECTORY. This article should be replaced with a category. As a list it is impractical: there are many thousands of Anglo-Catholic churches (though Carolynparrishfan (talk · contribs) disagrees - see their edit summary here [44] and a comprehensive list would be overly large. In short, useful information, wrong method. Springnuts (talk) 06:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request by nominator to AfD to be closed. ivo discussion below I would like to withdraw this nomination and would request any admin to close this AfD. Springnuts (talk) 06:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Springnuts (talk) 06:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 06:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carolynparrishfan is right - 'many thousands' is an exaggeration. Hundreds might be correct. But the list is incomplete as is - it misses the parish where I was introduced to Anglo-catholicism for one. And I don't see a future for this. At the moment it seems to be a list of links to parish websites, which won't do. And we can't make a category of it, because the category could only be populated by redlinks to articles about local churches, which consensus pretty clearly doesn't like. Reluctant delete -- BPMullins | Talk 07:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure a debate about numbers is hugely productive, but in England alone about 30% of parish priests - 3000 or so - would count themselves under the Anglo-Catholic banner. Many have more than one Church. Springnuts (talk) 07:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may have touched on an important pond difference here. In Canada (and I believe the US), AC churches are sufficiently rare as to be inherently notable. Carolynparrishfan (talk) 18:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep but it raises important wider issues - The value of a list like this is that it enables articles that are needed to be identified. In this respect, lists differ from categories (which cannot have red links. I see two difficulties with this list (1) deciding which churches qualify for inclusion (2) whether the church in question is in fact notable. The problem with a list like this is that people will add more churches as red links, and this invites the creation of articles. However the view taken in WP is that most churches are NN, and I fear that it is right. The church of which I am a member is very notable to me, and I could argue that it has a wider notability, but it is probably only locally notable; possibly regionally. It is not Anglo-Catholic, or even Anglican. The same considerations will apply to hundreds of churches. If this list is to be retained, it needs a moderator (or group of moderators) who will ensure that NN churches quickly removed. Alternatively, we must open the door to every church having its own article, as we seem to have done with High Schools, but have stood out against added Middle and Primary Schools. Also, if this list is retained, we must allow similar lists for every denomination and every stream in broad ones such as the Anglican church. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list is a reasonable-sized list including many churches that are individually notable. I note at least one is a U.S. National Historic Landmark and others are notable for various reasons. Several of the church articles already mentioned NRHP status. Further, I just replaced red-links or external links by wikilinks to new articles on 7 of the U.S. churches that are U.S. Registered Historic Places. Although my new articles may be stubby, they are notable: there is plenty of secondary information available about them and they are listed on the National Register because they meet criteria for national importance. I find it odd that the nomination for deletion complains that the list would have thousands of entries, and then wants to delete it for the unwieldy size that might be. But the list is a reasonable size of notable churches. I think that criteria for notability of individual church articles ought to be applied to the individual church articles. It is perfectly reasonable to have a list/index to the notable ones, and that is mainly what this list-article is. doncram (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Would a 'list' of Anglo-Catholic churches notable for their Anglo-Catholicism - be that notability architectural, liturgical, historical or doctrinal - not be best achieved by a category? Individual such churches should have an article, but using a category avoids the red-link problem. Springnuts (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response I think there's room for a List as well as a Category. A List can do things a category cannot: for one, it can hold red-links to items that are known to be notable, but which an editor doesn't have time to create the articles right at the moment. Also, a List can be expanded to include thumbnail pictures and short descriptions of the items in the list, and otherwise be developed to make an interesting article on its own. The roles of Lists and Categories are often complementary. For example, see the List of National Historic Landmarks in South Carolina, which I have been working on recently. It complements the "Category:National Historic Landmarks in South Carolina". Also there are corresponding List and Category pairs for NHLs in every other state. I think it is not reasonable to eliminate a perfectly nice and useful list like the one we are discussing here, which can become a nice article. doncram (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reviewing the two relevant guidelines - Wikipedia:Lists and Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigational templates - I believe List of Anglo-Catholic Churches benefits both Wikipedia:WikiProject Anglicanism and Wikipedia. To quote, "Redundancy between lists and categories is beneficial because they are synergistic ..." This list is not indeterminate as it is restricted to notable churches. This lists allows readers and editors to keep tabs on non-existent or deleted articles by the red-links. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator I believe that we may have consensus that as long as the list is restricted to individually notable churches (with thanks to doncram for this,[45] imo most helpful, edit) we are content for it to stay. I am happy to withdraw the nomination on that basis. Regards to all, Springnuts (talk) 06:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. (non admin closure) Cenarium^Talk 01:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Alex Stevens[edit]

Google search yields no relevant hits. Appears to fail WP:BIO. Thaurisil^t_c 06:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non verifiable. Even if sources are found, the question of notability would arise. Springnuts (talk) 06:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-verifiable and possibly completely fictitious - one would expect a person with 2000 song-writing credits to be slightly easier to verify than this. Mazca (talk) 12:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, found what looks like a valid source for the mentioned song "Mother Kelly's Doorstep", written by "George A. Stevens". See here. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are more sources: [46], [47], [48]. I will add the refs. to the article. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I concede that the topic is verifiable, but the sources that have been found are either his sheet music, or only have a passing mention of the man. Unless secondary sources are found in which he is the subject, he fails WP:BIO. Thaurisil^t_c 12:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What gets on Afd never ceases to amaze me. Famous song writer of his generation. Ask anyone over 60! Anjouli (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete even though sources have been found for his existence and writing, his notability is not sourced: he fails both the basic criteria in WP:N (since coverage is not substantial) and the guidelines in [Notability for composers and Lyricists]. Springnuts (talk) 06:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Don;t people look at the dates before searching Google? He died in 1954. The information given is enough to show there will be further --print-- sources for notability. DGG (talk) 15:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm only a young whippersnapper compared to Anjouli, but I certainly know that On Mother Kelly's Doorstep is a music-hall standard. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A Google Books search shows that he has an entry in the 1937 edition of Who's who in music. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the excellent arguments for retention presented above. John254 23:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 23:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

West Gym[edit]

A gymnasium for a public university. Non-notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wsanders (talk • contribs)

Speedy Delete - Nothing notable here. Springnuts (talk) 06:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. not Encyclopedic enough. Dwilso 04:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely unnotable university building. AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Also citing questionable use of west gym as it is a generic description of many public facilities. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 19:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 02:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Escaflowne mechs[edit]

Violation of WP:NOT; just a list of mechas in the show Vision of Escaflowne without any real-world relevance to them. Prod removed by author. JuJube (talk) 06:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the page survives AfD, it should be renamed to Escaflowne mechas or something similar. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, speedy if possible. From reading the article, particularly the bottom comment, this seems to be nothing more than a single editor's personal essay, opinions, and original research. We are not a web page hosting service and such a fan page belongs elsewhere. It doesn't even refer to the series by its proper name (Escaflowne is the movie, The Vision of Escaflowne is the anime series) and the relevant mechs of the series are already covered in List of The Vision of Escaflowne characters in the appropriate pilot sections. Collectonian (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only mecha I would expect to be able to pass notability is the Escaflowne itself. But as a class, the mecha of the Escaflowne series aren't that notable. It is also clearly someone's original research based on what they've seen via YouTube. (Do I really need to explain just how bad that is?) --Farix (Talk) 19:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since it was started by a newbie, probably. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. (non admin closure) Cenarium^Talk 01:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Most[edit]

This person does not seem to be very notable and there seems to be very little biographical information on him. Illinois2011 | Talk 06:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well-known film producer who produced The Crow and its sequels, so I would say he's very much notable. Lack of biographical detail is a reason for improvement and expansion, not deletion. --Canley (talk) 13:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perfectly well within Wikipedia's notability guidelines. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 13:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:BIO. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete per consensus. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William A. Darden[edit]

Interesting but there is no compelling assertion of notability apparent in the article (fails WP:MILMOS#NOTE), limited independent coverage of subject. Appointments, rank and medals received don't appear to merit an entry, which is unfortunate as Wikipedia has been inclusive to a fair bit of cruftiness of late ;-). Is the Bronze Star and Legion of Merit particularly significant awards in the US order of precedence? Are they comparable to, for example, the British Military Medal (awarded to over 130,000 people! At least according to the article)? SoLando (Talk) 05:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —SoLando (Talk) 05:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No more notable than the hundreds of thousands of other soldiers with similar decorations. And the account that created the article is virtually an SPA: [49] Qworty (talk) 09:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While these are honorable decorations demonstrating courageous military service, they are not the highest decorations offered in the US military and do not automatically confer notability. Nor do any of his other, rather perfunctory, staff assignments. --Dhartung | Talk 20:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While there does appear to be some original research here, along with some unnecessary cruft, the sources listed, while not incorporated as proper references, seem to be, at least on the surface, reasonable enough secondary sources to nominally satisfy WP:RS. While the Christian Activities article was written by a family member, it was nonetheless published through a standard editorial process of a print magazine. (The magazine, BTW, cites a circulation of 15,000 to 20,000 a month in the Nashville area.) The other sources seem to be of varying levels of coverage, though it is hard to determine without actually seeing them. As to the notability of the subject's awards, while each by itself likely doesn't confer notability, nor might not be just a couple of them, the combination of all of them may amount to a reasonable degree of notability. Thus, I recommend that this article be cleaned up, crufty information culled, and referencing improved. LaMenta3 (talk) 07:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete LaMenta makes a good but not convincing argument. Colonel isn't quite high enough to be inherently notable. He doesn't appear to meet WP:MILMOS#NOTE. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 02:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A D Dawson[edit]

no claim of notability, no references; it sounds like this guy has had about 2 stories printed. Brianyoumans (talk) 05:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've done a search on him and added a few external links (interviews, google book page for one of his short stories). He seems to have been published only in very small circulation journals and is at best a fringe writer. No notability asserted, and none found. Risker (talk) 05:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Writers who haven't published a book will of course always fail WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 10:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks like self-promotion or COI. Deb (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 23:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parallipsoid[edit]

Article is about a neologism. Wikipedia is not a dictionary Rick Block (talk) 05:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 06:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would say transwiki, but it has already been done. The only other instance of the word I am able to find is a patent on headlights, where I'm guessing the writer meant something similar, but it's not enough, obviously. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 09:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Either delete or drastically rewrite so that graphic design rather than geometry is identified as the topic. This ugly contrived word seems intended to remind people of the word ellipsoid and it can thereby give the impression that something precise is being said about the shape, and that is misleading. Michael Hardy (talk) 13:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable neologism whose only source is the blog of a 16 year old who also seems to be the article's author. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This clearly doesn't meet notability WP:NEO. I can't find any significant usage of the term, and the only reference present is the person who coined it. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 17:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --pbroks13^talk? 02:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete; discussion indicates that the subject is not covered in reliable sources as required by the policy on notability. --jonny-m t 16:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian Party (United Kingdom)[edit]

Non-notable minor political party. Sources provided are for the most part it's own web site. Article admits to virtually no coverage from the press. Ninety members out of millions of voters is hardly an accomplishment. DarkAudit (talk) 05:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 06:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A political party that was created on 1st January 2008 and has gathered no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources in the short time it has been around. It is clearly not notable at this time. Should that change at some time in the future then the article can be restored. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. If Wikipedia can have extensive coverage of the various non-registered one-man-band communist political groupings in the UK (see Category:Communist parties in the United Kingdom), then this mainstream democratic party should surely be included here. --Hereward77 (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument for keeping an article. The article in question here is what's relevant. If the articles you are trying to cite fail notability and sourcing guidelines as this one does, they are sure to be weeded out in due course. From the article's content itself, it's obvious that the party is not mainstream. Ninety members out of a population of millions is hardly mainstream. DarkAudit (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have just mentioned in the article that the party has received a critical welcome from the Adam Smith Institute, that makes it a notable and mainstream party. --Hereward77 (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The original article that I submitted was deleted. Someone else then started another article which has been around for a couple of months and has not been nominated for deletion. Now, I have updated the article, and suddenly it is nominated for deletion again. Interesting. Membership is now at around 150: for a party that has garnered no mentions (that I know of) in the mainstream press as yet and has been taking memberships for two months, this is not too shabby.

It seems to me that notability should not be an issue in any case. This is a party registered with the Electoral Commission in the United Kingdom: the party exists and the fact that the party exists is documented in the records of the UK state. I don't quite see how Wikipedia can pretend that it does not exist, for that is what is occurring here.

Is Wikipedia aspiring to be a proper encyclopaedia or is it merely aiming to be an aggregator of what is popular? If Wikipedia denies the existence of this party, despite UK state records to the contrary, then it is merely a populist aggregator, not an encyclopaedia (and should therefore remove "The Free Encyclopedia" tag from its logo.

The party has hundreds of mentions across tens of political weblogs. Whilst I am aware that blogs probably carry no weight with the Wikipedia's editors, they nevertheless testify to the party's influence throughout the UK political blogosphere.

As I say: the party exists and it would be perverse to deny that fact (and even more perverse when Wikipedia has articles on far smaller and less significant parties). Devilskitchen (talk) 18:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Existence is not enough. Coverage is. Coverage by reliable, verifiable, and independent sources is. Those are the guidelines as laid out in WP:N and WP:RS for notability and sourcing, respectively. By your own admission the article fails notability because it has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Blogs and self-published sources like the party's own web site are not generally considered proper sourcing for an article. DarkAudit (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SPA Activities Report. Devilskitchen is an SPA designed to promote minor blogger Chris Mounsey and the minuscule British Libertarian Party. It is no coincidence that Devilskitchen has the same name as Mounsey's blog. Chris Mounsey is also up for deletion, btw[50]. The SPA evidence is here: [51]. My guess is that Mounsey and the British Libertarians, who have failed thus far to get national, well-referenced notability for the minuscule party and its tangential blog, are now determined to confer notability upon themselves by hijacking Wikipedia toward that purpose. Both this article and Chris Mounsey should be deleted forthwith, then salted if recreated. Qworty (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The idea that I'd need to use Wikipedia to promote my blog is, if you'll pardon me, laughable. You'll see in the original entry for Chris Mounsey that I put that "I quite expect this entry to be deleted, but I don't like links that lead nowhere" (or words to that effect); indeed, I am happy for that one to be deleted (I have little wish to broadcast my real name). Hijacking Wikipedia was not a motive: providing information was. When the original Libertarian Party article was deleted, I accepted that the notability reasons were valid and that I would reapply or ressurect the article when we had got coverage. That someone else ressurected (or, I think, started a new version of) the article was nothing to do with me. Given that they had let the stub stand for a couple of months, I assumed that Wikipedia had rethought the decision to delete the article. So, a few days ago I did update the article because I thought that Wikipedia would like to have as much information as possible. And, as I said, I don't like links that lead nowhere. Ironically, you will note from the entries that the Devil's Kitchen blog, minor though it may be, does actually have coverage from "reliable, verifiable, and independent sources". As I said, I provided information: if Wikipedia does not wish to use it, then that is fine. For Wikipedia representatives to imply conspiracy is perfectly understandable but is not the truth. Anyway, there is little more that I can say: I shall return to attempting to get the British MSM to take any notice whatsoever! Devilskitchen (talk) 21:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because an article is let to stand for a month or two, or even longer, does not mean that it is a proper article. There are millions of articles, and only so many eyes. It's not possible to expect every article to be vetted immediately. Sometimes it takes a while for something to catch an editor's notice. DarkAudit (talk) 21:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - And my attitude now is precisely the same as it was then. If you wish to delete it, you have grounds to do so and we'll return when we have coverage (although it was admitted by one of the editors, when the original article was Quick Deleted, that maybe the decision was a little hasty). The present article had stood for a while and I provided more information: that is all (and since I am one of the original five founders, I am one of only five people who could possibly provide that information). But, as I've said, it's your party... Devilskitchen (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you are "one of only five people who could possibly provide that information," then I think you'll find that this admission alone will sink you around here, since you are in violation of WP:OR. We can't have an encyclopedia article that's based on the private knowledge of five people! That's not what verifiable notability is about. Qworty (talk) 00:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete for political parties, very small has usually been considered good enough if there's a real party, and not just a group of like-minded friends. In this case it seems to be five, individually named, like-minded friends. Maybe they'll get support. Then there can be an article. Of course, perhaps there will be a news item or two before the AfD closes, which would change this to a keep. DGG (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Saying that this party has been "formed" is a gross overstatement. Registering with the Electoral Commission in the UK is a similar process to registering a trademark. It simply means that you pay £150 to reserve a party name which can appear on ballot papers if you decide to stand in an election.[52] It doesn't mean that any actual party in any meaningful sense exists. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. "Notability" is so subjective. I read through WP:ORG and noted this section:

Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations.

This delete argument is doing just that -- promoting bias towards larger organizations. Never mind the fact that the mainstream media selects for itself what organizations are deemed "notable". I'm not sure why anyone would think that the MSM -- which is in a serious nosedive as far as revenue and readership is concerned, compared to internet news sources -- is a reliable indicator of notability. Further:

"... for political parties, very small has usually been considered good enough if there's a real party, and not just a group of like-minded friends. In this case it seems to be five, individually named, like-minded friends. Maybe they'll get support. Then there can be an article.

I'm not sure I understand this line of reasoning. The five members as stated were merely the party's founders. A party officer says there are currently ~150 contributing supporters -- in the face of a MSM blackout. 150 is more than 5, and those certainly 150 "support" the party. If one were to visit, say, the Labour Party page, there is only one leader (Gordon Brown) listed at all. Is there some standard by which the UK Libs need to list the names of their 150 members to have even a shot at being considered "notable", and some other standard by which Labour only needs to list its one leader? If this is the case, perhaps this should be clarified in WikiPedia's policies.

I was the person who established this iteration of the article back in January. I was unaware of the deletion of a previous article on the group. I would agree that some of the large number of edits from one individual have added what may well be irrelevant material, but the article itself is certainly relevant. -- MarcMontoni (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I posted above about the SPA manipulations behind this article's creation, but haven't voted till now. My trouble with the article is with the sources. The electoral commission is not a good source, since anybody can pay a certain amount of money and register a party--that is the equivalent of "publishing" a vanity-press "book." The rest of the sources are all blogs. Blogs (see WP:SPS) are generally not accepted as sources on Wikipedia because, well, anybody at all can write anything at all on some blog, so it doesn't necessarily mean anything. Again, it's like "publishing" a vanity-press "book." Apart from this problem, most of the other citations in the article come from the party's own website, which is just another variety of "blog," if you think about it. Using the party's own site falls under WP:SELFPUB, which lists seven requirements for an acceptable self-published source. In my view, this article fails on all seven criteria. So, given all of this together, we have an article that is completely unsourced. Clearly, anybody can pay to register a "political party," start a website about it, and then arrange for a few blogs to mention it. This is not notability--this is nothing more than self-promotion. Thus, this article has no place on Wikipedia. Qworty (talk) 04:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note just in case anyone was thinking the nomination was politically motivated. Nom is from West Virginia, a registered Democrat, and has spent a total of 5 days tops in the UK, all in Rosythe in 1992. DarkAudit (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wouldn't like to think that my contribution has prejudiced this article's standing, though obviously it has. I am sorry for this. When I said that only five people could give certain bits of information, I meant that were, for instance, the MSM to do a profile of the party at some stage, the information would be coming from the same source, i.e. one of the five founders. That article would, of course, then be attributable, although the ultimate source would be the same.

As I've said, it's up to you guys. There really isn't a promotion motive here: average referrals from Wikipedia come to about 3 a day out of a daily average of 300 uniques. Wikipedia is surely about finding information and that is what I volunteered. Oh, and I never suspected a political motive, DarkAudit. Devilskitchen (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, DK. All this is about is that Wikipedia has certain criteria for being included in the encyclopedia. A major one is a criteria of notability by which a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage, i.e. addressing the subject in depth, in reliable sources, i.e. sources with a reputation for editorial control and fact checking. These don't appear to exist yet for the Libertarian Party, which is not surprising given it is less than 90 days old. That may change of course and when it happens, that will be the time to create the article. I'll be happy to help when that time comes. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Malcolm. As I said above, I quite understand that position and agreed when I last took part in this discussion.

Delete. Definitely nn. This is a party formed on the 1st Jan 2008, with no news coverage, no membership figures, no reliable sources to show us anything much about them... Maybe things will change in the future in which case the article can be recreated then. Marcus22 (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Strong Keep' There's another list of 'Libertarian Parties of the world' the UK Libertarian Party is a libertarian party. If I wanted to find out about libertarians in the UK I would go to Wikipedia. I move to explain just how small and insignificant it is as a party in the UK. But in the end it is still a party and the person with the personal information probably shouldn't be editing this article any more than David Beckam, Gordon Brown, or Robbie Williams should be editing there own entries or Paul Mcartney should be editing the Beatles entry. But Libertarianism exists as a movement and the Uk Libertarian party exists and is registered no matter how insignificant registering as a party is in the UK its still registered. How much is this politically motivated anyway? And why isn't any one trying to delete the Belarussian beer lovers party? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.76.235.122 (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for broadly the reasons in the preceding unsigned comment (and other positive comments). A registered political party, with a modest but growing membership base, and clear alignment. As in the definition of "notable", I feel this passes as "worthy of note". If the party flops, never contests an election, or similar, then there may be cause for deletion. But for the moment, it seems to have earned its notability in the current zeitgeist. AlanFord (talk) 10:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 02:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skinaladoa[edit]

probably vandalism since "Skinaladoa" does not exist on the entire Internet outside Wikipedia Warut (talk) 04:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. It is supposedly a flower from Japib, which also does not exist. Risker (talk) 05:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious hoax. Edward321 (talk) 04:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax/fictional. Choess (talk) 00:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mikelle Biggs[edit]

Description of circumstances under which this child disappeared in 1999. Sadly, there is nothing notable about either the child or the circumstances of her disappearance. No references, and Google-hits are essentially limited to child-find websites with varying and sometimes contradictory stories, and Wikipedia mirrors. Risker (talk) 04:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. --Dhartung | Talk 05:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Belongs on a milk carton, not in an encyclopedia. Qworty (talk) 10:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I know there are many article of wikipedia for victioms of crime or missed. As I can inderstand from the article this case reached the headlines of US news. User: Lucifero4 —Preceding comment was added at 10:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - needs more sources. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 10:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, In my opinion you should not vote a "Delete" only because an article lacks references. Place an ((unsourced)) "tag" in the article. The "Biggs" case made national headlines in the United States and is considered one of the most important cases of a missing child in Arizona, see: Arizona Republic - Detective Files: Mikelle Biggs Tony the Marine (talk) 02:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the link you've provided seems to go to some sort of index, although I was able to call up some stories at this related link, which requires registration for access. I did check the first several hundred google hits for any news stories, but came up empty; you've found more than I did. Any other way to get to the link you've provided? Unfortunately, without more than what we have now, we can't demonstrate the notability of her disappearance, which is the reason for this AfD. Risker (talk) 03:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She still hasn't been found. Now save all your "wikipedia is not a..." talk. WE CAN ACTUALLY HELP HER BE FOUND by keeping this page. I hope you show heart here. Secondly,if she is on an FBI or government file for missing children, which I assure you she is, she is notable enough to be kept, specially on a case like hers where the FBI has even released an updated photo which is well available to the public on the Internet. Mikelle Biggs did not ask to become famous. Unfortunately, she did. Antonio Save the Children Martin 12:38, 24 March, 2008 (UTC)
Delete WP:BIO1E. possibly being on a government file does not give notability. Reywas92 ^Talk 17:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 02:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Point Security[edit]

This page was blanked by an IP who said in the edit summary, "Alpha Point Security does not exist, other than its (poorly made) website, it has NO list of past clients, and no other sources mention its existence" and on the talk page, "This page should be deleted, Alpha Point Security is clearly a hoax and the record needs to be cleared." There is indeed no coverage, significant or trivial, in reliable sources hence it fails WP:RS, WP:V and WP:N. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 05:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems like a possible hoax to me. I mean, most PMCs don't advertise this way, and the domain seems to be up for sale. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, maybe not a hoax; a few trustworthy-seeming websites give them mention, but it's still iffy. In any case, I haven't been able to find anything asserting notability. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Besides the company's own web site, I couldn't find anything online which points to this being a real organization which conducts mercenary operations. The company's own web site coyly avoids ever mentioning any clients or spokespeople, making it impossible to fact-check anything. Zetawoof_(ζ) 08:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Withdrawn with nobody calling for a delete. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Antebellum (album)[edit]

Don't get me wrong -- "Love Don't Live Here" is my favorite song on the country charts right now. However, there is virtually no information out there on the 'Net regarding Lady Antebellum's debut album; all I can find is trivial mentions stating that it will be put out on April 15 on Capitol Nashville. The only verification I can find for the track listing is Amazon, which I don't think qualifies as a reliable source. Therefore, I believe this page violates WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn, I wasn't aware that the track listing was on Lady Antebellum's website (and yes, I did check). That may be a primary source, but it works for now -- and besides, the album's gonna be released in a couple weeks anyway, so this isn't doing any harm. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Are you saying verification is an issue? Lady Antebellum's website has the track listing, and confirms that the album is self-titled. Obviously not an independent secondary source, but primary sources are acceptable for verifiability particularly for a track listing. --Canley (talk) 10:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Canley's comment above. Track listing has been confirmed on the band's official website. Eric444 (talk) 00:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G3 (vandalism in the form of an obvious hoax). Salting. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Dablemont[edit]

Most of this is nothing more than a hoax. Obviously, he was never married to Tonya Harding. The books exist, but their publisher, Lightnin Ridge Press, returns exactly ZERO Google hits, which no doubt means they were self-published and therefore do not meet WP:BK. Apparently this has been speedied several times [53], so it should be salted. Not much more for me to say. Read the article for yourselves. Qworty (talk) 03:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious hoax. Lady Galaxy 03:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: Salt if recreated. Toddst1 (talk) 04:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - although I have to admit it was vaguely amusing, especially the photo with his "son". Risker (talk) 05:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt hoaxalicious. Work of poor unfortunate soul with too much time on his hands. JuJube (talk) 10:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 02:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Laungani[edit]

Non-winning reality show contestant. Appearance in People only because of his stint on The Apprentice, and then just as part of a list, not a feature. Not notable for anything else. DarkAudit (talk) 02:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to meet biographical notability standards. There are janitors who were associated with this show longer than he was. Qworty (talk) 19:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete g3, obvious hoax = vandalism. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Family Guy in Star Wars[edit]

Obvious hoax, editor removed speedy tag so I'm listing it here. Torchwood Who? (talk) 02:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Obvious hoax- if it hasn't been made yet how can it be NC 17? No google hits either.--Mars2035 (talk) 03:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Why would they do this again (Blue Harvest (Family Guy))? --Canley (talk) 03:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Canley (talk) 03:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:CRYSTAL if not a hoax. JJL (talk) 03:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above. Lady Galaxy 03:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax, neither reference is valid SkierRMH (talk) 04:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. Risker (talk) 04:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No matter how good John Leguizamo might be as Glenn Quagmire (as C-3P0, I suppose) this is a poor attempt at a hoax. Delete with all due haste. - Dravecky (talk) 05:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Excellent points above, but I'm wondering why the links in the infobox direct to info about Titan A.E. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 06:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Someone probably copied an infobox from there or something. This would also explain the John Leguizamo bit; the budgets are also the same. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 09:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax or WP:CRYSTAL. Take your pick. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 07:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicous. Minor point - although you can't speedy something for being a hoax, the author can't remove speedy tags from their own pages. JuJube (talk) 10:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technically they can, as in they can perform the "act" of removing a speedy tag. Instead of edit-warring over it I decided to just bring it here. Also, I think patent nonsense can apply to hoaxes of this kind.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 10:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nonsense thing was a joke. I just realized I'd get about 10 talk page messages if people thought I was serious.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 10:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The G3 vandalism speedy criteria includes blatant hoaxes now. DarkAudit (talk) 14:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax content and redirect to Blue Harvest (Family Guy) to discourage recreation. 23skidoo (talk) 13:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per G3 as blatant hoax. Hoaxes are now speediable. DarkAudit (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 01:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris mounsey[edit]

Minor political blogger, and there are hundreds of thousands of them throughout the world. In terms of his blog, he gets a grand total of 74 Ghits, most of them self-generated or links from other minor political blogs [54]. The article was created by a Single Purpose Account devoted to editing about the blog and its libertarian interests: [55] As a consequence, the article was red-flagged by our COI bot as a possible violation of WP:COI. It smacks of pure promotion, and the "references" provided don't pass the bar of our standards for third-party verifiability. In short, this is weak stuff for a number of reasons. Qworty (talk) 02:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blatant self-promotion. §tepshep • ¡Talk to me! 06:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable as has no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Notable political activist and blogger mentioned in national newspapers and mainstream political circles in the UK. --Hereward77 (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The only mentions I can find in the national press are the two Daily Telegraph references referenced in the article, which contain a grand total of seven words apart from the subject's name, his blog and its web site's name, and a quote from him. This is not the substantial coverage required for notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per Qworty, Stepshep et al. Marcus22 (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 23:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Hudgens Second Studio album[edit]

Essentially no information available. Article was a collection of rumors from blogs, and once those were deleted, the article was essentially empty. Article should be deleted until there is real information. Titles Vanessa Hudgens Second Studio Album and Vanessa Hudgens Sophomore Album should be protected until real information is available. Otherwise, we just have another rumor-magnet article serving no real purpose Kww (talk) 02:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Protection - Redirect to Vanessa Hudgens and protect the article from people editing it until the article is notable enough. Surfer-Boy94 (talk) 04:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No real information, not even a formal title. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 05:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 06:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL and nom. --The Helpful One ^(Review) 15:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, this isnt' even a good CRYSTAL article--Rtphokie (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:V and WP:MUSIC and therefore is just unsourced speculation. Until references are available, the article should be expunged. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 20:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 01:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mea migrant ministry[edit]

Not notable, possible OR. ukexpat (talk) 02:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:OR. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was withdrawn by nominator. krimpet ✽ 18:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don Murphy[edit]

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

AfDs for this article:

See also

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Don Murphy

Nominating per WP:BLP and the precedents from Daniel Brandt, Seth Finkelstein, and Rand Fishkin. Basically I advocate a generous opt-out for biographies of living persons: if no paper-and-ink encyclopedia runs an article about the individual, and they ask for their biography to be deleted, then I'll nominate it for deletion. All three of the examples listed above were nominated successfully on that basis. Policy allows the closing administrator to bear the subject's wishes in mind, and I ask fellow Wikipedians to weigh this as well: a Wikipedia biography is virtually guaranteed to be a top Google return, and may be targeted for vandalism by business rivals at strategic moments, and the page's existence and content makes far more of a difference to the article subject than to anyone else.

As many of you are aware, this article was recently restored at DRV. Please bear in mind that the opinions of many editors were based upon process concerns for that particular deletion (which wasn't related to any recent AFD discussion). So that outcome shouldn't prejudice this nomination, I hope. Let's delete this, get it out of everyone's hair, and move on to more important tasks. Durova^Charge! 01:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:SNOW has been mentioned both here and at my user talk page. After 12 hours or so I'll look at the shape of the discussion and if it looks like a snowball I'll ask for that closure myself. Thank you all for making time for this. With respect, Durova^Charge! 05:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting speedy close as nominator it's obvious that it would take nearly 100 deletetion preferences to change the outcome at this point. The community has spoken. To every editor who participated here, thank you for coming. This is unambiguous. Durova^Charge! 16:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion may get heated, please try and remain calm. Please do not post any material which is likely to contravene the Biographies of Living Persons policy. Links to Wikipedia Review are acceptable here provided they are directly relevant to the case. Nick (talk) 02:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Content looks good, content is sourced. The subject is wholly notable. I don't think deletion here would be policy based. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 01:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, and address the nominators other concerns, protection may be an option here to keep out vandalism. However, we are only reporting what the sources state. We did not create the source. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To address another concern: I don't know how we are to "delete this and get it out of everyone's hair, so we can move on to more important tasks" (largely paraphrased from above). Writing the encyclopedia, is the important task. Deletion, is not always the answer, and not correct in this case I would offer. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Deletion inappropriate. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please wait until the deletion nomination is complete and live before weighing in. The two of you have caused four edit conflicts. Durova^Charge! 02:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, however, you did make it live before you created the subpage here by tagging the article first. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. But as you no doubt saw, that tag did not connect to this page and the headings here weren't fixed yet. It'd be reassuring to know people had at least read the full nomination before making up their minds. Durova^Charge! 02:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that it not connecting was an error, I altered the tag. I see it was intentional, I should have left alone. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but leave permanently semi-protected Under most circumstances, if a marginally notable person requests that his or her article be deleted, we should give it due consideration. But in this case, the request was made in bad faith. In any case, there is enough sourcing here to do is what is happening now--leave it permanently semi-protected to keep any BLP violations to a minimum. Blueboy96 02:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The evident bad faith with which Daniel Brandt conducted himself played no part in my decisions, nor has Mr. Murphy's personal conduct weighed in this nomination. Durova^Charge! 02:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The wishes of the subject may possibly be taken into account (I would say they shouldn't be), but not as a sole reason to delete. If there is a real reason to delete this article, say so. --Tango (talk) 02:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well sourced, well-written article. Can be protected if required, but Wikipedia should not be dictated to by anyone - knowledge comes first. WP:BLP is not a reason for deletion, and precedents aren't either. They cannot be used as a basis for deletion. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 02:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have some sympathy for the view that the articles of people of borderline notability should be deleted if they request this, however I remain utterly unpersuaded that Don Murphy is such a person. He is my view much more worthy of encyclopedic consideration than the other persons cited in the nomination. As the producer of films such as Natural Born Killers, From Hell, Bully and Transformers he more than meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I do not accept the view put forward during the DRV that producers are of limited notability simply because most are not household names. BLP issues must be dealt with sensitively and vandalism quickly reverted, but Wikipedia should have an article on Don Murphy. WjBscribe 02:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How is a producer notable? If you look at sites like imdb.com, the producers aren't on the page of the film and you have to click the full cast and crew in order to see the producer. The producers come after all the uncredited actors. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The question at hand is whether Murphy is notable, not producers generally. --Dhartung | Talk 05:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - But the argument being put forward by many in this debate is that Murphy is notable because he was the producer for Natural Born Killers. How does being the producer for this film generate any more notability than the guy that played the part of the pinball cowboy who got is butt kicked by Mallory/Julliet Lewis in the begining? That guy doesn't have an article in Wikipedia. Sure you can say that Murphy has done a bunch of other stuff as well but he's not notable for it and if he hadn't have been involved with Natural Born Killers we wouldn't even be having this debate. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 15:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you feel about this revision, then? It seems to establish a notable post-Natural Born Killers career, especially based on his reputation. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' seems like a perfectly reasonable article, and normally I would say bad practice to go for a 3rd nomination. PatGallacher (talk) 02:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I had no involvement with either of the prior deletion requests. This isn't one of those situations where the same individual renominates disruptively in hopes of achieving a particular result on the umpteenth try. Durova^Charge! 02:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep This is a highly notable individual. This issue was previously addressed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Murphy (2nd nomination) where the community reached an overwhelming consensus that the article should stay. Nothing has changed since then. If anything, Murphy's notability has grown. Indeed, the recent DRV appeared to express a possible consensus for his extreme notability even aside from the primary issue of the DRV that is, the out of process deletion. Murphy is not a borderline notable individual such that we might consider courtesy deletion. He has been the producer of Transformers (film), The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (film) , Natural Born Killers and other notable films. He has also been a director. We have a large number of non-trivial, independent reliable sources about him, including one an extensive one from the New York Times.

Murphy is a willing public figure, someone where not having a biography about him would leave Wikipedia noticeably incomplete and he has by his own actions willingly put himself in a job that placed him there. Indeed, he has among other items, appeared in multiple documentaries interviewing him and talking about his work. See [56] which lists at least 5 such documentaries.

Comparisons to Finkelstein, Brandt, and Fishkin are not compelling since Murphy is clearly more notable than any of those three and since many people disagree with some of those deletions. Fishkin in particular is not at all similar since he got in the news for a single one-time romantic stunt and for some otherwise very low-level coverage due to his success at SEO. And none of these rose to the level of notability such that they had multiple appearances in documentaries. Even if one does accept these prior deletions, there is no reason to have a similar attitude about Murphy.

I urge anyone interested in this matter to read User:JoshuaZ/Thoughts on BLP. I will bring up one issue from there that seems to me to be more and more comepelling the more I think about this: Wikipedia is not censored and it isn't clear how this isn't censorship any less than if we decided to remove the pictures of Mohammed or the Bahá'u'lláh. We simply have more emotional sympathy for individual living people than the deep-seated religious convictions of vague multitudes for both cultural and psychological reasons. But the harm that is caused to peoples psyches in having pictures of Mohammed is far larger both in terms of the total numbers harmed and in terms of the maximum amount of stress caused. To allow one sort of censorship and not the other is to allow the POV and ideas of certain Western cultures to take precedence, resulting in an ultimately not NPOV encyclopedia in terms of our inclusion.

There has been some discussion elsewhere about long-term protection of highly problematic biographies at the subject's request. See User:Naerii/blplock and User:SirFozzie/BLP-Lock for a few of such proposals. We may wish to consider that sort of solution here, especially since Murphy's primary objection appears to be vandalism issues.

Finally a note, Murphy has been explicit that any solution resembling the "complex merge" that was done with Daniel Brandt will not leave him any happier. Brandt is still harassing Wikipedia and Wikipedians, attempting to get any mention of his name removed from Wikipedia. Anyone hoping to implement some sort of similar compromise solution should remember this. Merging is not a reasonable option here. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced + Notable = Keep. 'nuf said. — Coren ^(talk) 02:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a "tempest in a teapot" issue that does not have widespread support for deletion, rather the opposite. Call for WP:Snowball. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 02:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: I don't know why it was deleted the first time. Sourced article about a notable subject; meets our inclusion guidelines. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Murphy is obviously a notable figure which is what is most relevant here. As a rule I am at least open to the deletion of borderline BLP's on a case by case basis when the subject requests it, however I do not think this is a borderline case, and there are mitigating factors here as well which could create problems for us in the future if we cave to the subject's wishes here. A long discussion about how to deal with living persons who do not want articles written about them is very much needed and soon, but I cannot imagine that conversation concluding with the belief that articles on producers of major Hollywood films should be deleted. I also don't support permanently protecting the article or only allowing an extremely stubbified version. Instead, everyone voting here should watchlist the article and work to make sure that it stays strictly within the confines of our BLP policies and is rigorously sourced.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The page can be protected or semi-protected to prevent vandalism. In and of itself, the potential for vandalism is not a reason for deletion. Regarding his wish to have the page removed, we only include material on Wikipedia from secondary sources; if he has a problem being in the public eye, then Wikipedia is not the person to go to. He should be bothering the secondary sources that we derive our articles from, not us. Also, wikipedia is not censored. If there was a real reason to delete this article that was presented that shows why Wikipedia is not able to maintain it's guidelines with an article on him, I will change my !vote. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Durova and subject's request. Ripberger (talk) 02:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, stub and permanently fully protect. Too notable not to have an article; not notable enough that is has to be editable and a vandal magnet. Black Kite 02:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to be rather against the principles of Wikipedia... --Tango (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Honestly, this rationale is nonsensical. We have a straightforward standard for inclusion - a person must be unambiguously notable for inclusion, based on our criteria: "if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Brandt and Finkelstein were of marginal notability and I've no idea who Fishkin was. Murphy, however, is in a totally different league. Factiva finds many dozens of articles either directly about him or which mention him; there's a full-length profile in the Hollywood Reporter ("Risky Business", Hollywood Reporter, 13 January 2006), many articles about his role in making Transformers and even more articles about his role in making Natural Born Killers, covering in particular a book by his co-producer Jane Hamsher in which Murphy has star billing (so to speak). There's absolutely no doubt in my mind, based on this quick Factiva search, that Murphy has notability in spadeloads. If he's significant enough to be profiled by the Hollywood Reporter, for his activities to be described in numerous news articles and for his films to be at the top of the box office lists, he's notable - period. Durova's argument about Murphy's wishes is, frankly, irrelevant. We are not dependent on getting permission slips from our subjects to write about them. There is no basis whatsoever in policy for the argument that the subjects of articles have a veto on "their" articles. Durova cites WP:BLP, but based on the media reportage that I've found, I have no doubt at all that Murphy qualifies as a "well known public figure" within his professional community - "there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from" and in this case there certainly is. There is also no good reason to stubbify the article because of a belief (how well founded, I don't know) that the article would be a vandalism magnet. We certainly don't do that for other comparable articles. Semi- and move-protect it, watchlist it, revert any bad edits and leave it at that. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out that by "stub" I didn't mean a one line article, but a factual account of Murphy's career and a filmography would appear to be unexceptionable. Black Kite 02:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, in that case I wouldn't disagree. But having said that I wouldn't support a full protection of the article. That seems a step too far. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, actually my argument about the subject's wishes comes directly from policy. See Wikipedia:BLP#BLP_deletion_standards: When closing an AfD about living persons whose notability is ambiguous, the closing administrator should take into account whether the subject of the article being deleted has asked that it be deleted. There is no consensus about how much weight editors should give the subject's wishes; in that matter the closing administrator exerts discretion. I had nothing to do with the consensus that wrote this passage into policy; I simply propose that we interpret unambiguous for this purpose as the existence of a biography entry in any reliably published encyclopedia. If you find even one bare bones bio for Mr. Murphy in a specialty encyclopedia then I will withdraw the nomination. It's that simple. Durova^Charge! 03:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but for many of us (such as myself) the presence in a paper encyclopedia is a much higher standard for what constitutes borderline notability. I think my comment above gives a pretty good summary of why it isn't very ambiguous or borderline in this case. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't work - you're redefining clearly understood standards. "Ambiguous notability" does not, in any rational world, include an individual who has been covered as extensively as Murphy. I forget how many results I got from Factiva, but it was a lot - around 330, if I remember rightly. This is not someone who has lived in obscurity. Your standard - "the existence of a biography entry in any reliably published encyclopedia" is specifically contradicted by policy: "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia; there is no practical limit to the number of topics it can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page." The existence or otherwise of a paper encyclopedia entry on Murphy has no bearing whatsoever on whether Murphy clearly and unambiguously meets our notability standard. That is the standard which applies here and that is the only standard endorsed by policy. We have to use the policies we have, not the ones that you wish we had. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The challenge I faced when I contemplated the Daniel Brandt nomination was to define a bright line standard. Wikipedians had given previous courtesy deletions to people who were clearly notable under the standards you articulate, ChrisO. Particularly we tended to do that for adult children of famous politicians who got major news coverage over minor arrests. As I express on the talk page, that situation bled into WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. So I settled on what I call a dead trees standard, which has withstood tough scrutiny as one feasible and reasonable interpretation of current policy. It is by no means the only reasonable interpretation of policy, of course, yet I ask you to accord it some fundamental agree-to-disagree respect: this was the basis of the AFD that finally jettisoned the Brandt biography after two years, 13 previous AFDs, a wheel war, and an arbitration case. Things haven't been perfect since that AFD but at least they've been a lot more stable. Durova^Charge! 03:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Marginal notability + Subject requesting deletion = Deletion per WP:BLP. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above, the subject obviously meets WP:BIO as demonstrated within the article. (jarbarf) (talk) 03:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If Scorsese made it known he wanted his WP article deleted, would we delete it? Certainly not. This director, while lower-profile, is still notable, and the article about him should not be deleted simply because he doesn't like having it existing. Bellwether ^B _C 03:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

§ 2[edit]

Delete per Durova and Pocopocopocopoco. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Besides being the producer of some very notable films, this person is the primary subject of in-depth secondary reliable sources, the prime criteria of both WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BIO. As always an article about a living person needs to be handled with care and follow WP:BLP guidelines. This article as its currently written is not in violation of those policies. Ironically, I would not have known there was any controversy in this person's life had he not so fervently attempted to get this article deleted and publicized personal information of those that disagreed with him. Had he simply objected to specific content he had issue with, a very common occurrence with article subjects, this person's biography would be a minor issue with scant attention.--Oakshade (talk) 03:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The notability is sufficient and there are no BLP issues so keep it. John Reaves 03:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and well sourced, i can see no issues with this article. It is invalid to try to get an article deleted for personal reasons. There is a clear conflict of interest here amd there's is no chance that any article is going to be deleted on that basis. If you are a public you're going to have articles written about you. It is inevitable and unavoidable. I suggest this is closed per WP:SNOWBALL. --neonwhite user page talk 03:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Concur with the "per SNOWBALL" suggestion. Bellwether ^B _C 04:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree this is a snowball. I think a policy shift is needed so we can spend more time on more important bios... delete this as marginally notable, or failing that, stub to bare facts and lock. Then consider doing the same for the rest of our marginally notable ("not in 2 general interest paper encyclopedias" test) BLPs. Yes, yes, this is a delete that is OUT OF STEP with current policy. That's the point. ++Lar: t/c 04:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We're not a paper encyclopedia, which is the point. This is as easy of a keep as I've ever seen. If you think policy needs shifting, work toward that. We don't need to delete articles that some feel fall under a hypothetical version of BLP that they think should exist. Bellwether ^B _C 04:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to agree with Bellwether here, I don't think article space makes good test cases. We ought to change policy via the policy pages, and not the AFD page. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 04:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Policy here is descriptive, not prescriptive... it mirrors what we do, we don't change it and then adhere. I'm arguing for a shift in policy. It may be rather a futile one, mind you, but I fear this article is perhaps symptomatic of a larger problem. One that we may not be aware exactly how deep and endemic it is. ++Lar: t/c 04:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have encouraged Durova on her talk page, and I encourage you, perhaps this needs more exploration on the BLP talk page? Examination? And maybe some proposed changes. I understand the policy reflects what we do, but *if* and I say /if/ we are doing the wrong thing here, we may need to discuss it. I think the best venue is on WT:BLP perhaps. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 04:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are arguing in the wrong place. We don't propose changes in policy to get a desired result in a deletion discussion. They are discussed on the relevant policy pages and a wide community consensus gained before any change is made. --neonwhite user page talk 16:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Actually the current policy was sufficient for consensus at the three precedent articles listed in the nomination. If people are no longer comfortable with that and want something more explicit written into policy, I could go in that direction. Durova^Charge! 04:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets commonly held notability thresholds for his chosen career. I have sympathy for deletion requests from borderline notable figures who have no expectation of a public profile, but this guy works in mass media and is clearly notable in that context. If strategic vandalism is a real BLP concern, then lets protect the article, but I can't support deletion under the rationale presented. Rockpocket 04:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Certainly meets our notability criteria as the producer of a notable film and the subject of multiple reliable sources. Aleta ^Sing 04:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't say that I've made up my mind about this article yet (likely leaning towards keep, but I would like to be objective and really think about it). However, I take issue with the statement in the nom that Daniel Brandt supports a precedent of deletion requests being fulfilled. Daniel Brandt was supposed to be a merge, though it's history was deleted by User:Doc glasgow and a few others in a backdoor tactic to get around AfD and DRV. None the less, the content is still seen as "merged" (and any past material not already merged is allowed to be merged since the contributors list is still intact at Talk:Public Information Research/merged material). The redirect was then deleted at Daniel Brandts request, then taken to DRV were it was restored. Today it's been re-deleted by User:WJBscribe, but hopefully we won't have to take that to DRV as well. If DB, be it redirect or content, is removed, it is not because we fulfilled a request by Daniel Brandt. -- Ned Scott 04:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He is not marginally notable, so KEEP The closing admin cannot consider him marginally notable. No one can. If he were marginally notable and didn't want the Wikipedia article, I'd change my vote. He's not some empty suit who is a minor cog in getting out particular movies -- he's closer to an entrepreneur who sparks the project, so it would put a hole in Wikipedia's coverage of Hollywood not to have an article on him. No marginally notable person could do the following and not be simply notable (quotes from the Reuters story mentioned in the footnotes):

1. bought Natural Born Killers from Quentin Tarantino for $10K when Tarantino was an unknown
2. "On Transformers, Murphy chased down the rights from Hasbro with X-Men producer Tom DeSanto"
3. "'Talent goes a long way, but tenacity is the only way a film gets made.' [Murphy told Reuters] Fortunately, that's something Murphy has in abundance."
4. "Murphy is successful because from Tarantino on, he has chased after the material that excited him"
5. "He was among the first people to discover Alan Moore's graphic novels, for example, including From Hell, which became the 2001 Hughes brothers movie starring Johnny Depp, and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, which starred a sprawling ensemble led by Sean Connery. Murphy brought his favorite Stephen King book, Apt Pupil, to his old USC pal Bryan Singer, who directed the story"
6. "Torso came about because Murphy knew that [...] "

If it weren't for Don Murphy, it appears some of these movies would not have been made. You don't get a more important reason than that for covering a person in the film industry with an article. This Reuter's article qualifies as a substantial source. The book written about the making of Natural Born Killers counts as a substantial source. No two ways of looking at it: he meets both the spirit and the technical requirements of notability (either WP:N or WP:BIO) and does so well beyond what Wikipedia considers "marginal". Mr. Murphy, I sympathize, but you're in. If you get reincarnated, be less successful in your next life, or at least find a way to get less notice, and you can keep that life out of Wikipedia. I hope we do our best to keep the article in good shape. Noroton (talk) 04:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC) (edited to add "in the film industry" Noroton (talk) 05:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Keep, bordering on speedy, he's easily notable enough that asking for deletion doesn't apply. Wizardman 05:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous keep arguments. If Murphy has issues with the article, he can contact OTRS and do things constructively for once rather than push people around and bully them. WP:BLP can be a reason for deletion, but it isn't in this place as the subject is not marginally notable under WP:BIO. The subject meets notability guidelines by a longshot. --Core desat 05:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly I am going against the consensus, but I strongly say this, "What bloody right do we have to insist on an article, when the subject asks for it to be deleted, when we can not really stop it from being added to with nonsense and possible libel?" Does semi-protection really do this? We have a long way to go before we can insist on articles on living persons, when they do not want them. --Bduke (talk) 05:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is the basis of wikipedia (and in fact any wiki) that any editor can create a page, provided it fits the guidelines, pages are not deleted because one particular editor, especially one who has a clear COI, wants it deleted. --neonwhite user page talk 16:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If we believe that we are incapable of keeping articles reasonably free of vandalism and otherwise inappropriate material, it raises serious concerns about the viability of the project. This is not something that should be decided on an article-specific basis, however, and this topic meets all inclusion policies easily. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it does raise serious concerns. With long dead people, we can justify it. Just take a look at the history of vandalism reverts on Antoine Lavoisier, which is on my watchlist and where I revert vandalism almost daily it seems. Do we have a moral right to inflict this on living people? I do not think so. --Bduke (talk) 06:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plausibly we are in the moral wrong on this, but that argument really belongs in the AFD for all living person biographies. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Policy and guidelines follows consensus, often from AfD. That it why I raise it here. Where else could it be raised? --Bduke (talk) 06:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biographys' of living persons talk page NonvocalScream (talk) 06:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my view the best place would be the mailing list, which is a good place for meta-discussions about the scope and direction of the project. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we are going to have a serious, possibly policy-altering discussion about BLP than it definitely needs to happen on-wiki. Many editors, myself included, do not participate in mailing lists for a variety of reasons. That's not to say that it can't be discussed on mailing lists - obviously it can - but a meta-BLP discussion that actual makes policy changes obviously needs to happen in project space.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism and inaccuracy isn't a problem? Take a look at the history for Sojourner Truth. She's way more notable than a current pop culture figure such as Don. My wife reverts vandalism to that article just about every day, usually stuff the bots can't or don't catch... (she watches it because she has an interest... how many bios are unwatched, unloved, untended?) Do you seriously think that there isn't insidious vandalism in many, most or even almost all biographies, that this isn't a problem. Yes, this may well be a project changing issue if it isn't fixed. I'd rather not be chivvied into change, but get in front of it. I'm actually not averse to a bare facts version of the article. But there is need for either stable versions or lockdowns, and it's a thing needed at a lot more articles than just here. Since policy is descriptive, AFD is the place to start. ++Lar: t/c 16:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are certainly problems, but the project rests on the premise that they are manageable. That premise can be challenged, but I don't believe it makes sense to challenge it only in the case of this one article. As to the last comment, I don't understand how you intend to advance the cause of stable versions or lockdowns by deleting this article. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support keeping the article for all the keep reasons that were voiced in the DRV. (Even though DRV isn't the place for that). seresin ( ¡? ) 07:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I would endorse (and have endorsed) deletion upon request in cases where notability is very borderline. This, however, is far away from the borderline. Don Murphy is the producer of an extremely famous (or depending upon one's take, infamous) movie, Natural Born Killers, as well as several other highly successful films. Now, granted, notability is not inherited. However, he is also covered significantly enough in his own right to easily justify an article, and to allow a well-sourced, NPOV article to be written, without BLP problems. Murphy is also by choice a public person in the public eye, even if perhaps not as much so as Britney Spears. In fact, I recall seeing his name in the credits for his films! Hardly the hallmark of a person desiring privacy. To worry about privacy, the subject must have a legitimate expectation of privacy. In a case like Brian Peppers, that is present—Peppers' privacy was literally invaded; he never wanted or sought the attention of the public. Not true of Don Murphy, not by a long way; he chose to work in a field where attention from the public (at least for those who succeed, which he presumably aspired to) is all but inevitable. Thus, privacy is no concern. Similarly, the article is bland and contains no unreferenced negative information (or as of the time of this writing, no negative information at all), so we do not have "attack" concerns, and we have notability which is clear and unambiguous. BLP concerns do not apply here, and one cannot simply by fiat state that they do. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Seraphimblade. (totally in agreement with his statement). Garion96 (talk) 08:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As many others have said this is not a case of borderline notability he clearly and easily meets our notability standards which I support. As such it is not a case for deletion by BLP. Unlike other cases where at least an arguable case for deletion was possible (even without the subject having expressed a view), in this case nobody would have nominated his article for deletion if the subject had not requested it. Davewild (talk) 08:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and would also support a speedy/snow close of this AfD. This subject is obviously notable to the extent that his own feelings towards the existence of a biography on himself are not to be taken into account. This guy is way bigger than Daniel Brandt. Others like Bellwether and Seraphimblade have put it extremely well, and I echo their statements. GlassCobra 10:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seraphimblade puts it very well. Hut 8.5 11:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is obviously notable by our broadly accepted criteria of being covered in depth by multiple reliable sources. Even among a profession considered non-public or (literally) behind the scenes, he has gained notability and notoriety as a producer. In part this is due to his personality, but it is also the projects he has taken on. He is not necessarily a line producer (nuts and bolts), nor is he by any stretch a courtesy-credit producer (your name in lights as thanks) -- he is a dealmaker, as Noroton has pointed out, the person who makes certain projects come together. In many ways almost every major film he has been involved with has had its own string of controversy, in which he was not just present but a player. The sources bear this out. It is really a fascinating biography if only he would consent to let it be told. I have no doubt he will continue to make trouble for the project as long as this article exists. If this has to be a test case for a new policy -- be it BLP lock, stub and protect, whatever -- that should be carefully considered as to its implications and preferably be subject to its own open and consensus-based procedures. The BLP deletion that led to this AFD was out of process and not apparently supported by any specifics. I feel the desire of the subject to object to material which he finds distressing for whatever reason, but I don't feel that offering the subject a veto over material which has been printed in national publications is really any kind of sane outcome. In any case, I do not believe that the subject falls under the marginal notability calculus that would allow us to grant a courtesy deletion, unless we are to precipitously adopt unreasonably strict standards for what can be written about at all. --Dhartung | Talk 11:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Bzuk's comments on Administrators Noticeboard. 88.208.228.107 (talk) 12:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His considerable involvement in a number of major film productions garners him inherent notability under any standard. Need verification that he was a producer? The credits are front and centre. If he doesn't want independent coverage of his life then he needs to somehow erase his involvement with films such as The Transformers. If there's a BLP issue regarding certain content, that's easily handled by locking the article, but bear in mind that under BLP anything is fair game so long as it has a reputable, verifiable source. 23skidoo (talk) 13:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, do not stub, do not lock. Everything has been said already but a person of his importance in hollywood should have an article. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 13:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Bzuk's comments on Administrators Noticeboard.195.141.76.131 (talk) 13:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that whilst I'm going to allow the two identical comments from two different anonymous users to stand, any further identical/substantially similar comments from anonymous users will be removed. Copying and pasting doesn't really contribute anyting to the discussion nor does it really help determine consensus. Thanks for your understanding. Nick (talk) 14:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per this , and the Tempest in a Teapot thing. 91.113.63.20 (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

§ 3[edit]

Comment - Trouble surrounding the article Daniel Brandt resulted in several improvements to Wikipedia's handling of claims about living people on Wikipedia. I am hoping that trouble surrounding this article can help move us in the direction of liberally using semi-protection on articles such as this one. "Do no harm" is indeed an important principle even though it is not the only or even the most important principle. Personally, I would do a complex merge on this article if I were the only person whose opinion mattered, but it seems obvious this is going to be a straight-up "Keep". WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per many others; the figure is clearly notable. However, the article should reflect this more strongly. Looking at the page history, all this seems to have started with RTFA and Runabrat's edit warring. RTFA added content to the article, as seen in this revision, that has significant information about Don Murphy. I would suggest looking at that revision and implementing some of the content. I don't think that what happened between him and Quentin Tarantino is biographical, and the Transformers paragraph seems a bit too large. (I'd suggest implementing part of this under "Marketing" at Transformers, and making a shorter mention here -- maybe three or four sentences.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the sources given; specifically Reuters News and EW (and/or the book Killer Instinct), I'm going for a weak keep. The subject is notable, but only just, and in these cases subject's opinion carries some weight. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still keep NOTHING has changed since the last two AfD and a DRV have kept this article. It is not going anywhere. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article is well above the notability yardstick, accompanied with a plentiful supply of reliable, verifiable sources. - Mailer Diablo 17:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. There is a note at the top of Heather Mills which directs people to Heather Mills (journalist), if thats what they are looking for. Rjd0060 (talk) 18:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Mills (disambiguation)[edit]

This article is unnecessary, as we only have 2 people of this name. The primary article for Heather Mills has a "see also" referring to the journalist. Nothing links to this page. If we ever get a third Heather Mills we can re-create this page easily enough. PatGallacher (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, please. The reason Pat created the article [57] on Heather Mills (journalist) was in order to place it at the top of the article about Heather Mills. [58] The reason for this is that Heather Mills was once accused of having pretended to be the journalist Heather, so it's one of the incidents that's being used as evidence that she is less than candid about her past. To place a link to the article about that person right at the top of the page is provocative and arguably a BLP violation, because it looks snide, especially when you look at Heather Mills (journalist) and realize that it has almost no content. For that reason, I created the dab page so that the dab link could go at the top of the article instead. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? I don't know how SmimVirgin claims telepathic knowledge of what my reasons were for creating the Heather Mills (journalist) article. The approach I adopted was, as far as I am aware, perfectly normal Wikipedia practice for this situation where we have 2 people of the same name, one of who is clearly the better known. I recognise that the article on the journalist could do with being expanded but that's irrelevant to the issues here. PatGallacher (talk) 02:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if you had other reasons for creating it, but that's what it looks like. You created the page with almost no content (referring only to the issue with the other Heather Mills), then you went to Heather Mills and posted the link to your article write at the top of the page, reverting when I removed it. And now you want the dab page to be deleted, presumably so that it can't replace your link. We have to be very careful with BLPs. If you didn't intend things this way, then I do apologize, but all I can say is that it looks snide, and I think will look that way to our readers. Some of them might think it's a laugh, but it's the kind of thing that doesn't make us look all that good. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it looks snide that is unfortunate, but that is a very subjective point, and I don't think it would look that way to most people. All I was doing here was aiming for legitimate expansion of Wikipedia following normal guidelines. PatGallacher (talk) 03:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:Hatnotes go at the top of articles; there's no ulterior motive for placing them there. Until there are more Heather Mills, there's no need for a dab page. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's unecessary for only two entries. I have no idea why this arrived at afd. It should have been dealt as a normal editing process. The maunal of style is clear about the proper way. --neonwhite user page talk 03:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not sure I'd have bothered, but it's clearly redundant. In the case where two people are not significantly better known than each other, a First Last disambig to First Last (job1) and First Last (job2) may be preferred, so having three articles is not unprecedented, but when one is known internationally and the other is not, as is now the case here, a single hatnote is the better way to handle it. A hatnote using ((otherpeople)) or variant is NPOV; I don't see how its presence alone can be interpreted as "snide".--Dhartung | Talk 05:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, unnecessary dab page. PeterSymonds | talk 07:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirect to Sengkang New Town#Primary schools. As for merging, the content will remain intact in the redirect's page history, although there is nothing in the article that is sourced, and is mostly spam Looking at the NewTown schools section, it would seem out of place to have only one school with "details" about how great it is. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fernvale Primary School[edit]

A primary school, which according to the concensus around here is deemed unnotable brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sengkang New Town would probably be best in this case (and similar ones, too). (jarbarf) (talk) 03:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn, or rd as above. JJL (talk) 03:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 06:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sengkang New Town#Primary schools, where it can be discussed in context. DoubleBlue (Talk) 07:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to relevant district per WP:SCHOOL regarding institutions that are below the level of collegiate and high-school. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 07:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sengkang New Town#Primary schools per DoubleBlue. • Gene93k (talk) 08:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Sengkang New Town per accepted practice. TerriersFan (talk) 14:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, dunno why we're linking it to a town. Wizardman 04:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - we are linking it to a section of the article on the locality where it is mentioned and to help expand a section that needs development. TerriersFan (talk) 22:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing distinguishes this from millions of primary schools around the world. At least nothing in the article does it. Nabla (talk) 02:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sengkang New Town#Primary schools per WP:School. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 23:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of the living dead[edit]

Article fails pretty much all of the general principles stated in WP:MOVIE, therefore making it non-notable. Also lacks references. On the other side ^Contribs|@ 01:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:V. Movie is available from an on demand publisher that requires "no setup fees, no minimums, no inventory"[59], making this movie nothing more than a self-published work with all available sources having a financial interest in promoting sales. --Allen3 ^talk 01:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources to show reviews, awards or even what typically falls under wide release information. No notable people involved in the production. The article can be created later, but right now it fails to meet notability standards.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 01:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only way this movie is available is from some site called createspace.com. No one knows about this movie and it wasn't shown in theaters. Brokenspirits (talk) 01:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well, if it wasn't shown in theaters, then it qualifies for a deletion, as Torchwood stated that the article doesn't really show notability. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 01:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet notability requirements for films. Risker (talk) 04:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. This has been open much longer that it should have been, and nobody other than the nominator feels it's not notable. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fat Chance (novel)[edit]

unsure about this book's notability. brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The author appears to be notable, and the young adult market is not well documented online, so it is difficult to demonstrate notability of a book published 10+ years ago. Ideally, we would have an article about the author and merge this in there. More recent interviews with the author and reviews of subsequent books often mention this book, so it is likely to be notable at least within Australia. Perhaps someone familiar with Australian book publishing could help out here. Risker (talk) 04:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 06:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - author's other books have been made into Australian TV series Pugwall, hence fulfils notability criteria. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete with no prejudice against re-creation should he win the election. DS (talk) 04:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Raymond Montez[edit]

There are several reasons to delete this short biography. As a politician, he fails the politician notability standard as elucidated here: [60]. He is neither an office holder, a major nominee, nor a notable person in any other sense. He has a total of 10 Ghits, two of which are Wikipedia. The article was created by a Single Purpose Account calling itself FelixForHouse, the SPA history of which can be found here [61]. As a consequence, the COI bot immediately identified this article as being potentially a violation of WP:COI. Finally, there are no verifiable third-party sources provided to assert notability. Thus, this article fails notability for several reasons. Qworty (talk) 00:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete See above. Mm40 (talk) 01:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Risker (talk) 04:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 05:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 05:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly short of WP:BIO until elected to the state legislature. Wikipedia is not an election information source. --Dhartung | Talk 06:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mt watatic[edit]

Non-notable ski area. Originally listed for speedy, but upon close inspection it isn't G11 material and I don't think that A7 covers ski areas. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 00:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, better article at Mount Watatic. --Dhartung | Talk 06:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Dhartung. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Singu larity 01:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PJ In The Morning[edit]

A college radio show on an extremely low-wattage station cannot, in good conscience, merit inclusion in Wikipedia. In addition to the lack of notability (Fails WP:NOTE), the article is poorly written and filled with inside jokes. Burghboy80 (talk) 00:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC) u[reply]

Delete Radio shows on college stations are usually non-notable, unless they have been the subject of independent non-trivial coverage. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 00:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Risker (talk) 04:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, and completely unreferenced. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 05:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2010 NAIA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament[edit]

AfDs for this article:

I'm not saying this won't be notable at some point, but aren't we jumping the gun a little here? Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 00:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At that same point we're only 2 years out, it's not horribly far in advance. And look at the Olympics, they have pages out to 2024, and NCAA has them out to 2011... This is such a small page, it doesn't hurt anyone to have it up there, and it's not crystal balling because it is not predicting any winners or teams that should be there. It is commenting on the tournament bid.Moonraker0022 (talk) 04:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concerns, but there are no even confirmed dates at this point. I (personally) just don't see the reason for having a page with a blank bracket and MPV slots for two years, I think any relevant information about the tournament can be covered in the NAIA Division I Basketball Tournament article for the time being, and once more details are finalized, then the article could be recreated. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 04:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But that is covered by the future sports label. And the brackets are empty, and the honors and awards are empty. There is no presumptive seeding or spectulation on who will win those awards, they are just there because I made a template for the NAIA ones so they would all look similar.Moonraker0022 (talk) 17:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll bet this will be closed as keep due to no consensus, because nobody appears to feel really strongly about it either way. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 00:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's just an empty page. In 2010, when we can fill it in, keep. But it doesn't make any sense to keep for two years, does it? I don't think so. Mm 40 _{Your Hancock Please} —Preceding comment was added at 01:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 23:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hedgehog Day[edit]

Article reads like a personal essay into the claim by some hedgehog fans that the Romans had a Hedgehog day upon which Groundhog Day is based. It appears to conclude that the claim is unsupported. It is possible that this be trimmed and redirected to a footnote on the Groundhog Day page, or simply deleted as a bit of nonsense. SilkTork *^YES! 00:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoaxalicious. Camillus (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wish CSD covered hoaxes Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 00:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, it's better to have more than two sets of eyes look at hoaxes. They usually get WP:SNOWed anyway. --Dhartung | Talk 06:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#OR. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Brewcrewer. Risker (talk) 04:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CPPMcE. Do wild hedgehogs even live in Italy? I know they're in parts of Europe and Asia, but I somehow can't imagine Julius having one as a pet. -WarthogDemon 04:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. However, they were regarded as vermin during antiquity, so no, no one kept them as pets. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 09:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - smacks of OR. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 05:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is a predecessor to Groundhog Day -- Candlemas. (Our article fails to mention the hedgehogs, but there are some book references.) But calling it "Hedgehog Day" is really synthesis. --Dhartung | Talk 06:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily a hoax. Pliny The Elder discusses the ability of hedgehogs to detect the coming and going of winter in his Natural History; however, he never mentions a celebration of a specific day. In any case, as there hasn't been any material written on the matter, it's or as much as something can be. Delete. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 09:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't take it as a hoax, either -- just WP:SYN that even (!) uses another Wikipedia as a source. Nice try, but we don't do that sort of thing here. --Dhartung | Talk 20:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: There are many hits for "hedgehog day" on the Internet which could easily cause someone to come to Wikipedia looking for further information. The article should be shrunk (drastically) and merged into Groundhog Day with a redirect. It is not spread as a hoax. It is spread as a "fact" by those who believe it. It is also celebrated as an actual holiday by hedgehog enthusiasts. So, I do not feel that the information should be simply deleted. It should be retained in a smaller form. -- kainaw ™ 23:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's not a hoax, but a well-meaning if misguided essay.SilkTork *^YES! 11:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW. Chetblong^Talk_Sign 19:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nelly Furtado's Fourth Studio Album[edit]

Contested prod. Prod reason was "Looks entirely speculative. If there were a title or a full track listing available from reliable sources, this might make sense, but right now there isn't enough to hang an article on", with a prod2 of "Pure crystal ballism with no possibility of verifiability." Although a few links were added after I placed the prod, only one of them even makes reference to the possibility of an album. There are a number of facts in this article which appear to be vandalism (I doubt Furtado is going to release a song titled Minge For You, for instance), but it's impossible to separate them from speculation and unsourced statements here. Zetawoof_(ζ) 00:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Speedy Delete, and fast. I think I'll report the user who created this to an admin, its is untrue. Nothing 444 00:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Although I would like to hear Nelly Furtado sing "Minge for you" Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced, WP:CRYSTAL, etc... Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 00:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exterminate, we can have an article on this once it's concrete, not while it's still in the vaporware stage. FusionMix 00:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge sourced info to Nelly Furtado discography until notability for seperate article is established. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kww (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this has the flavour of a hoax, or at best wishful thinking. The duets could just as easily be for the other artists' albums rather than Furtado's. Risker (talk) 04:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL, and it's all speculation - "It is believed that", "Possible songs". ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 05:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is pretty WP:CRYSTAL. Furtado's website doesn't mention a thing for the song titles, and neither do either source (which confirms that Keith Urban and Kylie Minogue are working on songs with Furtado, nothing on their names or if these'll even make her album). Most of the information in the first paragraph - if sourced - could be placed into the actual Nelly Furtado page if they're not already there. Doc Strange^{Mailbox Orbitting Black Hole}Strange Frequencies 15:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Crystal Sceptre ^(talk) 15:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As WP:Crystal.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't mention much and I feel it should be deleted.--RyRy5 talk 20:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. This sort of speculation shouldn't appear in articles. PeterSymonds | talk 20:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Nothing444, I don't see any reason to report the user who created this an admin. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 00:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Quite obvious. No sources at all should be enough. Udonknome (talk) 07:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can an admin please close this...the result seems pretty obvious to me... Udonknome (talk) 07:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Any true info from this could/should be moved into the main article (eg the stuff about the kylie duet) Breathe again (talk) 11:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teofil ivanciuc[edit]

Non-notable journalist: he wrote two travel books, one peer-reviewed article and he works as a journalist for a small local newspaper. The references don't really provide the notability and I suspect the article was written by Ivanciuc himself.

He participated in a few "photo competitions", like Guardian, National Geographic, but everyone can participate in those competitions, it doesn't make one notable.

Then there are a few article written by him, a few sites of him, a few forum posts, two libraries and a bookstore which have his books. Nothing to prove that he's truly notable. Mladen Vikić (talk) 10:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - self-promotion, spam, that sort of thing. You know, it just feels that way - I've weighed it on the encyclopedicity scale, and it's wanting. Biruitorul (talk) 05:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Harold & Kumar characters[edit]

Delete While the Harold & Kumar series (if it can even be called that) is notable to an extent, that in no way grants the characters enough notability to merit their article. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 21:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article has been gaining popularity lately. I am only giving input, but I think this article shall not be deleted until the second installment of Harold and Kumar is released. Then it will be easier to decide if this article has a future or not. So I conclude, under my own imput, that this article should not be deleted untill some time after April 25 when Harold & Kumar 2 comes out to theaters. --Tj999 (talk) 23:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the character bios could easily be expanded, there are just too many minor characters with no backstory at all to even be close to considering this a useful article. Captain Chiill (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]