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

The result was speedy delete as blatant advertising per WP:SPAM. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pet Expo 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is an advertisment Sarah777 02:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete as spam. --Gavin Collins 13:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Hayes[edit]

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

Unsourced, living person article. cohesion 23:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - being unsourced is not a reason to delete, it's a reason to improve. No comment on the notability here, though; but a (very) quick Google search didn't show up too much in the way of reliable sources. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 23:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. Renee 00:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Being unsourced for four years is a sign that there's a problem. On the other hand, she was the New Jersey Republican Babe Of The Week apparently. Is that notable? MarkBul 00:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, I just wanted to draw this to broader attention. Maybe we can find sources and it should be kept, I'm not pushing either way really, I'm just not sure personally. :) - cohesion 02:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If there's a real claim to fame, it's being the "first", "third", or "only working" professional female boxing announcer, depending on your source. The problem is, most are behind newspaper paywalls. --Dhartung | Talk 05:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I challenge the entire unsourced article. WP:V: "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." -- Jeandré, 2007-09-23t19:09z
• Comment All information on Amy Hayes is easily confirmed by searching for her on the net or by visiting amyhayes.com. Other reliable sources are MAXIM, Playboy , Cosmopolitan. Over the years there have been ample sources on her accomplishments. 4 seasons on Fox sports nets Sunday night fights series. Ring announcing on ESPN 2, Showtime, HBO Time warner etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.20.103.158 (talk • contribs) 2007-09-24t15:11:15z

  Read Wikipedia's verifiability requirements at WP:V. -- Jeandré, 2007-09-24t21:30z

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 13:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bartosz Brenes[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. • Lawrence Cohen 23:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Site lifted from here. Non-notable fan site. Renee 00:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non notable. I just deleted it, then realised that the talk page claims permission is given for the text to be copied. May as well just wait for the AfD to kill it. J Milburn 11:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Article fails to provide reliable sources to establish notability. --Kudret abi^Talk 03:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Mustafa Ibrahim[edit]

Ahmad Mustafa Ibrahim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I'm not totally sure on this one, and was tempted to speedy delete request it. He's notable for his death and stopping a terrorist attack, but it still feels thin. I'd be happy to help build it out a bit if it's worth keeping but I suspect it is too borderline. Saying weak delete as nominator. • Lawrence Cohen 23:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete. This entry does have some decent sources but it seems to be a one-time event so doesn't seem to be enough to meet the notability standard. Renee 00:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just a passing news item. MarkBul 00:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (suggested redirect seems unlikely search term). Espresso Addict 00:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Medical and healthcare educational software[edit]

Medical and healthcare educational software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, no evidence/assertation of notability. • Lawrence Cohen 22:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete. Sales site. Renee 00:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but do not salt. Currently too messy a spam page. But it is a notable topic. resuce? Bearian 01:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect: to Educational software (and remove that page's wikilink back to this article). Reason: There is nothing significantly different in medical versions that -at this point in time – warrant a separate article. However the 'term' might be Googled so the title is worth keeping. This solution also acknowledges that the subject in itself -is important.--Aspro 13:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- vehicle for spam. --A. B. ^(talk) 04:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 22:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CitiCat ^♫ 02:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chevron Cars[edit]

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

Clearly an article made for a non-notable advertising campaign. A single link on the page doesn't start with "www.chevron", and it's from a 1997 edition of a San Francisco Business Journal. Pro crast in a tor 22:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above; I must say, the existence of the pic on the right had me fooled for a moment, but I suppose that's a new tactic on the part of advertisers. Let that be a warning to people on talks like these… ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Lenoxus " * " 22:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for violating WP:SOAP, not to mention a lack of notability. Bfigura ^(talk) 23:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - if sources are found to prove notability, and the article becomes a little less soapy, I'll happily switch to keep. But until then, delete. --Bfigura ^(talk) 06:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. An 11-year ad campaign with collectibles, may not have been "the next Beanie Babies" as one 1996 article asked, but still kicking. Sources exist. --Dhartung | Talk 05:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Non-notable ad campaign? Are you kidding me! This has been going on for 11 years. It is only non-notable if you live where Chevron stations don't exist. If you delete this, then you might as well delete all toy collection entries! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.181.224.132 (talk) 05:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 13:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Does anyone even bother looking for sources before nominating articles for deletion? A Google News Archive search turns up plenty of articles with significant coverage of both the advertising campaign and the collectible toys. Easily notable. DHowell 01:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The fact that they have been parodied at least three times speaks to notability. I know of a parody on Robot Chicken that should be added to this page. Viperix 01:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the Shadows[edit]

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

Album track by a notable band on a notable album. Notability is not inherited, and I don't see anything here which demonstrates any independent notability. This is another one of the "A Matter of Life and Death" tracks which are being AfD'd separately so that they can be discussed on their merits. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non notable per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Consists only of information already included in the album article plus little unverifiable content. --Oxymoron⁸³ 06:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no apparent independent notability. J Milburn 11:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensusJForget 23:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Columbian Red[edit]

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

non notable marijuana strain. No assertion of notability, no sources. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into a "Strain" section of the main article, same as other strains up for AfD. ◄Zahakiel► 21:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 22:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Graft to main stem, per Zahakiel --Victor falk 12:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it really is a substub and needs more information, but like all taxa I think most, if not all, cultivars are notable. It just needs proper references. If anyone has a copy of this available, I'm sure it would be listed there. --Rkitko ^(talk) 13:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or merge) - given that this plant, as pretty much any cultivated plant, has hundreds to thousands of cultivars, most of which aren't particularly well-known or written about other than in brief entries in cultivar databases, it is much more practical to have a list of cannabis cultivars, a section in the main article, or even just a link to external sources. A few cultivars will warrant their own articles, but those should be written with sources and more than a single sentence, not mass-created in case they turn into real articles. (To give an idea of the scope, "There are more than 450,000 accessions (distinct varieties of plants) in the GRIN database." from [2] - and I'm sure other cultivar databases, or cultivars not listed in such databases, have many more). Kingdon 14:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or merge) - as stated above, there is no info on the page and since this is the second time this has come up and there still is nothing to the page, delete would be best. If there really is some info - it should be included, with other cultivars, on one page. 19:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardyplants (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 05:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Barr[edit]

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

Non-notable per Wikipedia:Notability (sports): A player who signs for a domestic team but has not played in any games is not deemed to have participated in a competition therefore they aren't notable. Was listed in January (result no consensus) but has still not played for any professional club. Should now be deleted - and re-created if his career does take off. Springnuts 22:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Delete There's nothing to say really. Someone who hasn't actually done anything but may do so in the future is not notable. Revolutionaryluddite 04:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Surely with that reasoning you mean Delete? - PeeJay 11:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did. Revolutionaryluddite 00:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Malcolmxl5 11:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. - PeeJay 11:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Has not played in a fully professional league (WP:BIO). Number 57 11:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:BIO as he has not played in a fully professional league. The article can be restored should he do so sometime in the future. --Malcolmxl5 11:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete For the same reason. Not yet notable enough. Fails WP:BIO. Alexf^{(Talk/Contribs)} 12:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 23:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FinnWars[edit]

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

procedural nomination Nominated for PROD deletion despite two previous trips to AFD. Current PROD nominator states: "Unsourced, no apparent notability". User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Salt for lack of sourcing and notability Bfigura ^(talk) 22:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a notable mod. See also WP:BIAS on countering systemic bias. If not Pelit but PC Gamer wrote about it, would it be more notable? No. That is geographical bias. Note: I removed the listscruft. User:Krator (t c) 00:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- article mentions two good sources in the form of the magazine reviews. Would be nice if someone could actually cite them as sources though, rather than just mentioning them. J Milburn 12:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 05:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are Gifts from Employers Included in Taxable Income?[edit]

Are Gifts from Employers Included in Taxable Income? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Needs to be totally rewritten and renamed and/or merged, if it should even exist at all. Rocket000 21:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't think Wikipedia does tax advice. MarkBul 22:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia not being a how-to guide. WP:NOT. Bfigura ^(talk) 22:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It should not exist. Wikipedia is not legal advice. --Evb-wiki 22:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Additionally, nobody would type in a search criteria like that. Useight 23:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge any useful information into Gift tax. I agree with everyone above that we don't need articles that ask a question for you in order to set up a how-to answer. Mandsford 23:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia does not give tax advice. Also, I believe that the user who created this article has also created an article entitled 26 USC 102(c), which covers the same topic in a more appropriate way. Also, I respectfully disagree with editor Mandsford regarding a merger into the Gift tax article. This is a Federal income tax topic, not a Federal gift tax topic. That is, the question is whether a certain kind of gift is includible in gross income (whether it's taxed) for Federal income tax purposes. Income tax and gift tax are two different things. Yours, Famspear 02:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually, I believe I have misread what editor Mandsford wrote. Mandsford did not explicitly call for a merger into the Gift tax article, but rather merely suggested a merge of any "useful information." My apology to editor Mandsford. Famspear 02:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia is not Yahoo Answers. When the entire article's context can technically be "yes", then there's an issue. Smashville 04:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As Evb-wiki - Wikepedia is not a source of legal advice - in addition article is completley US centric. Nigel Ish 12:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge useful content and cites per Mandsford. Bearian 17:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. DS 04:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hamid Palo[edit]

This page appears to be a hoax. Googling Hamid Palo, Palo royal family, King Samdi Palo, and Palovinia turn up zero relevant results. Author is User:Lounge270. Sifaka ^talk 21:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this hoax. May be a vanity or (mild) attack page - not true anyway. Check page history and creator's comment to nominator here. [[3]] Springnuts 22:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax. None of the refs mention "Hamid Palo". Probably a joke by his college friends, judging by the last paragraph. Good detective work, Sifaka! delldot talk 22:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Obvious hoax. Edward321 03:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Many of those in favour of deletion were saying that the article should be deleted because the existing content is terrible. However, that's not really a valid deletion reason, because many articles have risen from the ashes to become quite substantial and excellent FAs. A good example of this is MDAC. Other deletion reasons were that the songs aren't notable, or the band isn't notable. However, MarkBul pointed out a few external links that tend to indicate that the songs' notability. Therefore, my decision is to keep these articles. Ta bu shi da yu 00:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Carolina Jubilee[edit]

A Carolina Jubilee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I am nominating this and the following articles because I feel that these album pages will never be anything more than track lists. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 21:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated for deletion for the same reasons outlined above...

• Mignonette (album)
• Four Thieves Gone: The Robbinsville Sessions
• Emotionalism (The Avett Brothers album)

• Strong keep: Studio albums by notable artists. The fact they are currently short is not a valid reason for deletion, neither is the fact you think they will not be expanded. I personally doubt that the mass-created stubs on Eastern European villages which I see so often on new page patrol will be expanded, but deleting them would be a ridiculous thing to do. J Milburn 22:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What makes the artists notable? Certainly not any good references. The Washington Post citation goes to the WP Wikipedia page. I'd be tempted to recommend the band for AfD, and the albums certainly show no evidence of notability. Until I see some legit references, I'm leaning hard towards Delete. MarkBul 22:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether the band is notable is a seperate issue. As for whether the albums are notable- Emotionalism at Stylus Magazine, Emotionalism at Paste Magazine, A Carolina Jubilee at Harp Magazine, A Carolina Jubilee at Rockzillaworld, Mignonette at Paste Magazine, Mignonette at Independent Weekly (not any of the Independent Weeklys we have articles on) Four Thieves Gone at Prefix Magazine, Four Thieves Gone at PopMatters. That easily establishes the band's notability, and, even ignoring the fact that studio albums from notable artists are considered automatically notable, goes well on the way to establishing the notability for the albums. J Milburn 22:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment From WP:MUSIC "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article, space permitting.". Sound familiar? MarkBul 00:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I knew that articles containing merely track listings were deletable, but I totally forgot about WP:MUSIC. Thanks MarkBul. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There isn't really space in the main article for all of them, (especially if someone was to write the others) and merging them in there would discourage expansion of the album articles, which is not a good thing. I still think they should keep their own articles. They do have a little more than tracklistings, in the form of the infoboxes. It would get horribly crowded if all the infoboxes were piled in. I think that idea is more for band articles that consist of a paragraph and a couple of external links, with an album article with a single line, no infobox and a tracklisting. THEN I could see a case for merging, especially if there wasn't actually any other available infomation about the album. Here, as those excellent sources demonstrate (and there are interviews available too) the articles could quite easily be expanded. J Milburn 10:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Either Delete or Expland - Irrespective of notability of artist, the page needs to be expanded to be more than a tracklisting before the end of this AfD, otherwise a simple line on the artist's page will suffice. A1octopus 16:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you mean "expand" :-) Ta bu shi da yu 00:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but expand. Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 09:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless expanded beyond a track listing. Nuttah68 18:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 13:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Unicode characters[edit]

List of Unicode characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. A data dump with no context, that serves no purpose not better served by actually going to look at the unicode standard, is not useful. —Random832 21:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, per what I just said above. —Random832 21:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree that it's presented in a better format elsewhere, and with a higher degree of reliability (who would possibly check these are accurate?). Since raw data like this is not encyclopedic, and not as useful as the official sources, it belongs here to the same extent a phone directory would. Thomjakobsen 22:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Unicode characters make me horny Xizer 22:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, Keep Encyclopedia's exist to find knowledge right? So what if someone who did not know what this was, copy and pasted one of the symbols like "§" into the search, they would then learn all about unicode characters and how to write them. Or if someone wanted to edit wiki and needed to know how to write a "|" then this is where they would go. I don't know if this article belongs or not, but it seems like useful knowledge that would be a shame to delete. Viperix 22:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they copy-pasted § into the search, they would arrive at section sign, which is far more useful than this one in finding out what “§” is. And, this article says nothing about how to write a “|”, nor is it in a form that would make it reasonable to add that information. —Random832 23:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you missed my point, if they type any of these characters in it should bring them to this list. Because it helps them to learn "hey I can type all this stuff by typing in this combination of numbers" and the learning process continues from there. Also it does teach how to write the "|" "U+007C | Vertical Line" under Basic Latin. Viperix 06:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • if they type any of these characters in it should bring them to this list would be a BAD idea. We have actual articles about many characters. And, this list does not give any way of typing in the characters, it doesn't discuss HTML entities, alt codes, gnome "ctrl-shift" entry, etc, and none of that would be useful at all anyway for | because, well, it's _on the keyboard_.
        • Its on the keyboard? I don't think its on mine..... If it is let me know where, should save me time lol. Anyway I still think you miss my point, if it teaches how to use it or not is irrelevant really. This list passes WP:SAL, is useful for identifying these charictars, and to answer a question below, while researching things on WP, people don't necessarily want to go to a bunch of other cites, thats why they come here. And I don't think it exists elsewhere on the internet is a valid reason for deletion, If it was, WP would be nothing but links with no information at all. Viperix 22:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am against list-cruft, but this is not cruft. Wikipedia is not paper, and this information is extremely useful and cannot be stored as a category. This is an internationally accepted standard(ISO) the has gained enormous acceptance, none of Wikipedia's sister projects are better suited for it. This is a classic case of when a list is a good idea. The article can be made more encyclopedic by adding short one or two sentence explanations next to notable characters, and links to articles if they exist. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 23:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If none of Wikipedia's sister projects are better suited for it, Why does one of them have it? and mostly in a more useful form, too. (no, it doesn't have the list of character names, but it could reasonably be added.) —Random832 13:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is good reference information and while one might be able to find the same information in different places on the web, if one is looking for the info in wikipedia, it's nice to have it in a familiar format. Capmango 23:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it's unencyclopedic. Why would someone be looking for this info in wikipedia and not be happy with an external link at the bottom of Unicode? —Random832 23:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Just a data dump of information already provided on other websites.-Wafulz 23:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep whether information is on other websites or not is irrelevant to whether it should be on wikipedia. We're a encyclopedia, not a mere guide to the web or a supplement to the web. And what makes something encyclopedic? that's just saying it shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. But why? All encyclopedias have always had tables of information of this sort. DGG (talk) 01:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This list cannot be said to have no context or to be indiscriminate. I find it useful and informative, and I'm sure others do as well. —Nricardo 01:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It provides no context. It's a list of characters and names. It does not explain the history of the characters, etc, and it is not in a form in which it would be reasonable to add that information. —Random832 13:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article lists the characters of mankind's most widely used character encoding system. This is just as important as English alphabet, in my opinion. Try to remember that Wikipedia is more than just a traditional encyclopedia. --- RockMFR 07:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Serves a useful purpose; no real need to delete. -Elmer Clark 09:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ITSUSEFUL. Except, it's NOT. It's, in fact, _less_ useful than a single external link to unicode.org. —Random832 13:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's just as important as the ASCII set. --Ancheta Wis 11:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but split into separate articles - it's too big and will cause problems for many people that look at it. violet/riga (t) 13:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree a split makes sense. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 13:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — This is exactly the type of notable information that I'd use as a reference. — RJH (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not for raw information for use as a reference. Wikisource is over there —Random832 13:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Deleting it would only make Wikipedia less useful as an encyclopedia. Tim Q. Wells 18:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete- This is not the right forum for this, love page of some sort methinks.JJJ999 22:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it's actually quite useful and is (mildly) encyclopedic. I've referred to it myself here in the past - Alison ^❤ 01:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep somewhere. I'm not completely sure that Wikipedia is the best permanent place for this reference but I'm not sure that any of our sister projects are any better. I just found the page while attempting to research a question about domain-name spoofing (exploiting the similarity between the Cyrillic "Ye" and the Roman "E"). This page quickly answered my question when none of the other pages I'd found could.
  Note: If it is removed in favor of one of our sister projects, the page should be overwritten with a soft-redirect to that sister project-page. Deleting all traces of this page would be very unhelpful to our readers.
  Note 2: Splitting the page would, in my opinion, make the page much less helpful. Perhaps the goal could be met through reformatting on the same page? Rossami (talk) 20:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a reference content..wp->reference. fixed :).--Alnokta 21:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This reference material fulfills the criteria suggested by Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia (note: this is an essay). Burntsauce 22:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this looks like a nomination for the sake of nominating something. You do realise an encyclopedia is supposed to be a comprehensive reference work, right? - David Gerard 11:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or soft redirect to Wikibooks which has a much more efficient reference. Cary Bass ^demandez 13:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and perhaps fix up the formatting, but keep it because it is useful knowledge. We're not limited by shelf space here. The more info, the better. -Slipgrid 13:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sourced award nominations meet WP:PORNBIO and invalidate only deletion reason given. Eluchil404 00:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judy Star[edit]

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

Does not satisfy WP:PORNBIO. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. --Yeshivish 04:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC) sockpuppet GRBerry 03:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 15:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per award noms and WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 00:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article was blanked by creator, deleted by JForget under db-blanked. Non-admin closure. -- Kesh 02:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Fischer[edit]

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

Claim to fame is that she was a background singer for Michael Jackson, and that she was murdered. No relevant results on: Google, GBooks, GScholar, GNews, GBlogs, IMBD, Amazon.com, amazon.co.uk for any of the names mentioned in the article (although events occurred pre-WWW). I suspect the material may be sourced from a true-crime type book - could not find the "paul-von" mentioned in the article anywhere; however the reference(?) at the top of the article may be this which I don't think would include biographical information. Kateshortforbob 21:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- --Rrburke^(talk) 00:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Presumably she sang backing on the karaoke CD that goes with the book? From the lack of online references (even given the pre-WWW qualification), I don't see any evidence that her music career was independently notable, or that the murder was notable. Adding the two together doesn't justify an article, and I can't figure out the "paul-von" reference either. Thomjakobsen 21:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If possible, I would like to withdraw this nomination, as I have been informed that the article was previously speedy deleted under WP:CSD#A7 and have now tagged it ((db-repost)). Sorry for any inconvenience caused. --Kateshortforbob 22:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:CSD#G4 criterion only applies to articles that were previously deleted via AfD, not speedy deletes. The new version does attempt to assert notability ("one of the most popular backing singers etc.") so it's ineligible for another A7. It'll qualify for G4s if the result here is a delete and it gets recreated. Thomjakobsen 23:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for clarifying. --Kateshortforbob 23:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Absence of secondary sources means the subject fails WP:N -- Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles and Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Criteria for notability of people -- and the lack of Google hits would make it appear this could be remedied. Also, while it's sad she was murdered, Wikipedia is not a memorial. --Rrburke^(talk) 00:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Followup - The article creator has blanked the page, so I have tagged it WP:SD#G7. --Rrburke^(talk) 01:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus, defaults to Keep. NawlinWiki 04:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Penelope Trunk[edit]

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

Delete: Challenged PROD. Copying my reason for PROD below: Doesn't seem to satisfy any of the guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (people). No reliable published secondary sources about the subject that I can see (her web site has a list of press coverage, all of which seem to be articles about other things that quote her in passing), no independent biography, no awards or honors, no widespread name recognition, no widely recognized contributions or endorsements. Looking at the list of guidelines for creative professionals, she doesn't seem to satisfy any of those either. At best, she's a blogger and columnist with one recently published book; I don't think this cuts it.

The editor who removed the PROD commented that if there are reliable source references to her blog, she may be notable, but no one has yet come forward with any. SparsityProblem 21:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As Adrienne Roston, played professional beach volleyball; passes WP:BIO for athletes right there. As Adrienne Eisen/Greenheart, published award-winning fiction that has been professionally reviewed. As Adrienne Greenheart, pursued an accomplished but probably non-notable dot-com career. As Penelope Trunk, columnist for top outfits including TIME and Yahoo! Finance. It's a problem to search on all four names but there's enough there to pass WP:N. --Dhartung | Talk 06:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Needs secondary sources, which may eventually appear. But right now there's just not enough for notability. Ward3001 03:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. Trunk wants to be the Ann Coulter of career advice by writing columns filled with resoundingly stupid career advice. She has advised women to show more skin at work, take off from work when one feels like it and don't tell your superior, date one's coworkers, invite your boss to your myspace page, etc. One article about this can be found here. I'm not sure whether she honestly believes her own advice, or whether she just writes the things she writes to get attention. Honestly, I don't think she would be notable, except for the fact that Yahoo! has made her their career advice columnist, and that she dishes out advice that will often result in career suicide, which garners her a lot of attention. Her Yahoo! gig passes the threshold for notability, in my opinion, albeit just barely. 64.190.140.138 15:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was "invite your CEO to facebook", not myspace.

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

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

The result was train wreck - in any event, no consensus to delete them all, and no clear visibility to what the outcome of individual discussions would be based on this discussion. GRBerry 03:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several Monty Python sketches[edit]

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

Anne Elk's Theory on Brontosauruses

Arthur 'Two Sheds' Jackson‎

Conrad Poohs‎

Kilimanjaro Expedition‎

Vocational Guidance Counsellor‎

Decomposing Composers‎

Marriage Guidance Counsellor‎

Delete all - expired prods removed by editor who acknowledges that the sketches are not independently notable yet for some reason feels that the prods were "arbitrary." Given that the de-prodder acknowledges the lack of independent notability of the sketches and given that in addition to not being notable the sketches all fail WP:PLOT these seem like pretty obvious deletes. Otto4711 20:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP ALL - While its true that these Monty Python skits can not be absolutely defined as notable, I would argue that was actually the nature of Monty Python. Some of the funniest bits of that show were not the sketches which are commonly known, such as Spam, but really the segue pieces. I am therefore requesting removal of the deletion notice on the grounds that it is arbitrary, and that Wikipedia provides an excellent repository for showcasing Monty Python skits. There are after all 100s of Monty Python Skits and only a handful that have been made into articles in Wikipedia. I could also propose merging all proposed deleted articles into one related article to save some fine contributions from the wiki community. Thank You.--10stone5 20:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The threshold requirement is notability, not how funny they are. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. I love the Fliegender Zirkus as much as the next geek, but this is not Pythonpedia. I was prepared to say that these should be kept, but I was thinking of things like the Spam sketch or the Parrot Sketch. DS 21:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Merge into List of Monty Python's Flying Circus episodes. Fancruft. Unencyclopedic. We don't need, for instance, a list of all the composers mentioned in the Decomposing Composers sketch. Summarize each and include in the list. For a model of that, see Series 3, Episode 7 in the list, where a skit is described. I don't think redirecting is worthwhile. Noroton 21:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and by the way, there's no assertion of notability, usually no references and nothing but a plot summary in any of these articles. All against policy. Noroton 21:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all (plot summaries) into one article. -- lucasbfr ^talk 21:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Information is worthwhile, but not as separate articles. Operating 21:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep why delete two sheds but keep nudge nudge? Either get rid of every MP sketch article or keep them all. The only other sensible alternative is to only keep "notable" sketches, which would be sketches that have been written about or reviewed independently. But that would be silly. We have a separate article for every Frasier episode, not just the "notable" ones. Likewise, it is fine to have an article for every MP sketch. Capmango 23:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:WAX is not a reasonable argument for against deletion. Maybe we shouldn't have an article on every Frasier episode. I don't know. It doesn't matter, because the existence of those articles has nothing to do with the existence of these. The existence of other MP sketch articles is not a valid reason for keeping these. Otto4711 00:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not arguing for deletion. And I was using the Frasier example illustritively. There are plenty of situations where it makes sense as an encyclopedia to have a complete set. We had similar discussions about NY subway stops. Some are clearly notable, some maybe not so much, but if we're going to cover subway stops, it makes sense to cover all of them. If we're going to cover Monty Python sketches (and we should), it makes WP:SENSE to cover them all. Capmango 03:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't agree that it makes sense to cover every MP sketch simply for the sake of completeness. Otto4711 12:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep All or Renominate Separately so that we can discuss the merits of each separately. I know that the Anne Elk Brontosaurus episode is notable and the Kilamanjaro episode might be considered notable. Pocopocopocopoco 23:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have confidence in the ability of my fellow editors to be able to review this small selection of similar and related articles and come to a decision. If you have reliable sources that attest to the notability of the Anne Elk sketch then please add them to the article. Otto4711 00:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Anne Elk is notable because the whole sketch is in imdb.com memorable quotes. Pocopocopocopoco 01:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Someone's typing up a transcript of the sketch and uploading it to IMDB doesn't make the sketch notable. Anyone can type up a scene from a TV show and upload it there. Otto4711 02:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• How? My impression is that IMDB does not follow the wikipedia model of everybody editing articles, especially memorable quote articles. IMDB is used extensively in wiki as a source. Besides, shouldn't you show why Anne Elk is not notable? Pocopocopocopoco 02:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The lack of reliable sources that are substantially about the particular sketch demonstrate its lack of notability. IMDB allows anyone to upload information and exercises varying degrees of editorial control over the uploaded information. Its use as a source on Wikipedia has been contentious. However, even if IMDB were an impeccable source, the existence of a transcript of a particular sketch does not establish that the sketch is notable. Existence does not equal notability. Otto4711 12:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• OK how about this one Natural Kinds, Laws of Nature and Scientific Methodology by Peter Biggs pg 127 'I will call such minimal contentful accounts "Elk Theories" in honour of John Clease's Monty Python character. To the increasing high brow television presenter, Miss Anne Elk lovingly repeats her ("That is the theory, it is mine, and it belongs to me and I own it, and what it is too") the theory of the brontosaurus' Pocopocopocopoco 14:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please read WP:N. Notability means that the subject of the article is the substantial subject of reliable sources. A one-line mention in a book of at least 127 pages is not substantially about the sketch. Otto4711 15:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem is that most of us do online searches as we can't be bothered to go to a library over something like this and it might be difficult to get the rigorous standards that you demand for something that was a skit over 30 years ago online. During it's time, this skit was popular, it occurred before my time but people still talked about it when I was a kid. I know your going to start putting in a whole bunch of wikipedia links like WP:OR but what can I say. This skit generates almost a thousand hits on google and there are some reliable sources like the one I mentioned above that make reference to it. Right now I don't have time to do a more extensive search at the different hits, perhaps later. Pocopocopocopoco 20:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, but notability is not some rigorous unattainable standard. And the fact that you keep using words like "popular" indicates that you don't understand what notability is. It is not popularity. It is not a measure of how many Google hits it generates (the majority of which I'm sure are fansites and other unreliable sources). It is not about things "referencing" the sketch in passing. It is about having independent reliable sources that are substantially about the sketch. Otto4711 21:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. At the time this comment is written, none of the sketches have any sources demonstrating their independent notability beyond the fact that they're all Monty Python routines and therefore hilarious. If there are sources which can be added for any of them, I'll gladly review my opinion. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all These are all plot summaries that don't do the show justice. Why should they be on Wikipedia? I'm sure the vast majority of Monty Python sketches are non-notable. Fee Fi Foe Fum 05:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The theory on notability of Anne Elk's Theory on Brontosauruses. That is the theory, it is mine, and it belongs to me and I own it, and what it is too. :) Pocopocopocopoco 14:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All These are all notable sketches to some degree or another, especially when considered as a whole. On individual basis, i could see deleting one or two of them as non-notable, but as a block, i'm sorry, several are important cultural and historical events that reveal quite a bit about other things in society. It might be interesting to consider the recent actions on another monty python sketch that was not added in here, which is the football sketch which was recently kept. Did these prods happen at the same time? or after. I suspect the same time. Monty Python's work is notable, some of it is more notable than others. --Buridan 17:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It is very easy to state that something has some sort of cultural significance. It is quite another to back up that claim with reliable sources. You're admitting here that at least some of this material does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines yet you're arguing to keep it anyway. WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid argument for keeping. The fact that the football sketch article was (wrongly IMHO) kept has no bearing on whether any of these articles should be kept, because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason for keeping. However, if you want to make the argument, then consider that for every AFDed MP sketch article that's been kept several have been deleted, including "Blackmail" (deleted), "Albatross" (deleted), "Court Scene with Cardinal Richelieu," "Court Charades" and "Dennis Moore" (all deleted), "Erotic film" (deleted), "Conquistador Coffee Campaign" (deleted), "Johann Gambolputty" (deleted), "Mr. Hilter and the Minehead by-election" (deleted), "Medical Love Song" (deleted), "Silly Job Interview (deleted) and "Restaurant Abuse/Cannibalism" (deleted) and many others that did not survive being prodded. Otto4711 18:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• comment yes many have been deleted, and i suspect they will be remade eventually, it is that people recognize them as notable. if your point is about it needs verifiable material, then you should have marked them with cleanup, expert, and improve. No i am saying that at this point in time, some of the material might not have verifiable sources to show notability, but others certainly will. I haven't researched it, but then neither did you, you just marked it as delete, when it seems to me that again, you mark something for delete that you really want improved. stop WP:Bureucracy in favor of WP:common. I also want to note that I saw at least one Prod of yours in recent history that wasn't marked with an edit summary. It might be that some of these need deletion review. please use edit summaries on deletion proposals. --Buridan 22:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• My point is not that they need to be cleaned up. My point is, has been and will continue to be that the sketches are not independently notable. The notability of Monty Python does not extend to every three-minute segment that the troupe committed to film. This is honestly not that complex of a position, and all of your Wiki-lawyering and (incorrect) supposition about my motives, my desires or my actions does not suddenly make what is not notable, notable. Otto4711 22:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no suppositions about your actions other than to assume you are trying to do the right thing. That said, these are notable and python's notability does extend to some extent and your claim that they are not only requires reliable sources to show that they are, if you only need reliable sources, then you need to mark that first, and stop wasting people's time with unwarranted deletion nominations. if it requires cleanup and you are allowing for that, that is where it should start. I'm not wikilawering here, not deleting python sketches to me seems like wp:common, i did make a request that you mark prods on their edit summary, i think that is reasonable. --Buridan 00:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You're still falsely assuming that I did no research before prodding and then nominating these articles. I do mark prods in their edit summary. I missed one? So sorry, big deal. Is anyone going to miss the big PROD notice on the article? No. And, I again call attention to the fact that the person who removed the expired prods acknowledges that the sketches are not notable but was apparently upset that not every single MP sketch was prodded at the same time. And now the nomination is being criticised because they were all done at the same time. Otto4711 04:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• List individually I havent the least idea whether any MP sketch is notable, as I avoid him altogether. But I think it reasonable a priori that the notability of them will differ, and so I ask that the nom be withdrawn and they be listed individually. DGG (talk) 22:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It is clear that the nominator has not made any effort to investigate whether these skits are notable as he says above (emphasis is mine) " It is not a measure of how many Google hits it generates (the majority of which I'm sure are fansites and other unreliable sources)". He is obviously arguing that they are not notable unless we can prove that they are notable. Given that the subject matter decades old and has many hits with a google search and given that there are 7 skits, it's time consuming for us to search through and find material showing notability of these skits. Unless the nominator can prove that they are not notable, at this point I recommend speedy keep and close this AFD, give the authors a chance to beef up the articles to show notability (say a couple months), and if the nominator really wants to, he can renominate these articles individually after the authors have beefed up the articles. Pocopocopocopoco 00:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You can't demonstrate the notability of the sketches so you resort to more Wikilawyering. Otto4711 04:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll take that as admission that you haven't investigated whether these sketches are notable. Also, I think it's funny when you accuse me of wikilawyering when you've been doing a great deal of wikilawyering above. Just look at the number of times you've linked in a wikipedia policy link above and I also believe you are trying to get us to abide by the letter of WP:N while violating it's spirit. Pocopocopocopoco 00:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You're free to take it as an admission of anything you'd like, but sadly, your interpretation has absolutely no basis in reality. And gee, excuse me for including links to the policies I cite. Although I think you'll find that it's pretty standard practice, when citing a policy one believes supports one's position, to include a link to it in one's argument as a courtesy to those who might want to review the policy. It is not within the spirit of WP:N to retain material that is not notable; indeed, the spirit of WP:N is that subjects should be notable. I do not understand how WP:N can be read either in letter or in spirit to mean that articles on subjects that are not notable should be retained. So I'll ask again, can you offer any reliable sources that establish the independent notability of any of these subjects? Otto4711 01:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as the tide against these articles may be turning per this discussion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The major difference between that discussion and this one is that a source (however useful it may have been) was provided. To use the legal term, I don't think the precedent is "on all fours" with this AfD. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, I have added a script and video of Anne Elk's Theory on Brontosauruses similar to how it is done for The Philosophers' Football Match which was a keep and I have also added the reference I mentioned above which "Philophers'" didn't have, so I believe this article should also be a keep. Other than this particular edit, I am not an author of these articles but as I mentioned, I believe that time is warranted to give the author(s) a chance to beef up the articles similar to how I've beefed up Anne Elk. Pocopocopocopoco 02:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Congratulations, you have successfully established that the sketch exists. However, existence does not equal notability. You have failed to demonstrate that this sketch is in any way independently notable. Otto4711 12:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all or at least renominate separately. Monty Python is very famous and thus all of its sketches should be at least mentioned. JIP | Talk 04:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a considerable difference between "mentioned" and "have articles written about them", though. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• List individually and (those who do it or are contemplating doing so), please refrain from responding to every comment or opinion that disagrees with yours. It's bad form, intimidating to some, and not good evidence of your individual brilliance. Better use of that brilliance would be to improve the articles in question, seek out whatever you think is missing and add it, etc. Lou Sander 12:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The current python project for instance does little service to the particular phenomenon of Monty Python - and its effect on many in the english speaking word - any traces/aspects of the phenomenon - however slight in some editors views - need careful preservation from the lumberjacks. cheers SatuSuro 02:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• So you're suggesting that every single thing associated with Monty Python ever should have its own article? With no regard to the actual notability of the thing in question? That viewpoint does not appear to have any foundation in our policies and guidelines, which establish standards of notability for Wikipedia articles. Otto4711 12:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Response - nowhere in this did i say what you are attributing to me - I concur with Lou Sander above - take careful note of the advice SatuSuro 00:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all - Several books regarding Monty Python have been published, going into often extraordinary detail regarding the subject, yes, including individual skits. I think that those volumes help establish the notability of these skits. Having said that, I have no objections to the possibility of merging and/or otherwise combining several of these articles into a reduced number of articles, perhaps one per episode, after the articles have been worked on a bit more and it is clearer exactly how long they are likely to ultimately be. But deletion at this point seems uncalled for. John Carter 16:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The notability of Python as a whole and the notability of other Python sketches does not translate to notability for these sketches. In the absence of substantial coverage of these sketches the coverage of other sketches in these sources is irrelevant. Otto4711 19:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My statement above was not intended to deal directly with the subject of these skits per se. I don't think any of us know one way or another whether these skits do receive substantive treatment in the relevant books yet. I know I don't, having just started doing anything with that subject today. However, I do believe that if the skits are found to be non-notable individually, they will almost certainly be turned into sections of other articles shortly thereafter. If that is the case, then deleting them now, before such notability can be established by the comparatively few individuals who have had any activity with the subject area, might prove to be counterproductive. If they do qualify as non-notable, though, like I said, I am certain the content will be merged into other articles, probably individual episode articles, and probably shortly after non-notability is determined. I just don't see a need to rush to judgement here. John Carter 20:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think allowing non-notable plot summary articles to sit around unchallenged for six months is a "rush to judgment." Otto4711 22:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither do I, and, in fact, I made no such statement. If that is the amount of time they have been "sitting around", however, I could agree that you might have been justified in starting the conversation. However, I believe with at least a few people, myself included, with any luck now engaging in at least some active work on the articles, I think it would be extremely presumptuous to assume that that much time would be required. And I could certainly agree to a potential renomination in a much shorter time if no action were taken in the interim. Actually, if that heppened, I'm fairly sure I'd support deletion myself. But I do think that perhaps a period of one or two months to work on all the articles invovled would not be necessarily onerous. John Carter 14:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. Espresso Addict 21:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SCAR (programming language)[edit]

SCAR (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod - I believe that SCAR is not notable outside of RuneScape cheating (which is not particularly notable itself) and I believe there are no reliable sources about this subject, or to establish any sort of notability. OSborn^arf 20:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think it is notable enough.–Sidious1701_{(talk • email • todo)} 20:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- OSborn^arf 20:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete I am in 2 minds about this one, but given the fact it was developed specifically for usage in a small community/environment, and that I can't easily find an adaquate amount of notability outside of this (or indeed a suffice amount of publications which would convince me that it meets minimum notability requirements for inclusion), i'll have to vote for deletion. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No independent, reliable sources. The title is also a bit misleading; it's a Pascal interpreter, which means it's unlikely to generate the coverage you'd expect from a genuinely new programming language. Plus it doesn't seem notable enough to have been included in the RuneScape article. Thomjakobsen 22:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per lack of sourcing/information. • Lawrence Cohen 17:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly against deleting SCAR has a very strong and interesting history behind it, and is more than notable enough to keep. Over 30'000 people know about SCAR and how it works, and the majority use and program with it everyday. SCAR is primarily used for cheating in the online game RuneScape and is the only program which has stood the test of time with this game making it infamous on RuneScape. Apart from that, SCAR can also be used for many other things, such as doing boring repetitive tasks on your computer easily and even creating games. It is a great way to slowly slide your way into the world of programming, and since learning how to use SCAR successfully, i have found that i can also use Pascal, Delphi, PHP and CSS extremely easily as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.253.217 (talk • contribs)
• Delete as one claim to notability ends in a deadlink. --Gavin Collins 20:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Not-quite-weak-but-not-strong-either Keep Many people use SCAR and there are many sites that talk about it quite frequently. The reason why there aren't many sources outside the community is because it is considered taboo because of its widespread use in making cheats for video games. But if you look at the Razor 1911 or similar articles, you'll find that almost all the sources link to community sites/forums and such. And if you Google "Scar programming -Antarctic," you get almost 700,000 pages, only few of which are not talking about the programming language. Also, @Thomjakobsen, the reason why it's not on the RuneScape article is because of the game owner's dislike of it. It periodically will show up, but quickly get deleted (or at least that's what used to happen a 10 months ago...) @Gavin, sorry, changed the link to the black book; it's a zip but virusless.

In my opinion, this article could greatly improve if someone took 20 minutes to look for more varied sources (If my memory serves me correctly, SCAR was actually mentioned on the RuneScape page a couple of years ago), and tweak the overall feel of the article (make sure there are no spelling/grammar/continuity mistakes, switch around sentences, mess with sections. Aside from it's almost complete lack of sources (which like I said can quickly be fixed by someone who will "take one for the team" and stop playing Halo 3 for 20 minutes), there are almost no other faults in this article. Qoou.Anonimu 01:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Dirty Fork[edit]

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

Delete - expired prod removed by editor on the grounds that, while s/he acknowledges that the grounds for the prod were valid (that the sketch is not independently notable) she believes the prod was "arbitrary." Given that even the de-prodder acknowledges that the sketch is not independently notable and given that it also, as a plot summary of the sketch, fails WP:PLOT, this seems like a pretty obvious delete. Otto4711 20:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - While its true that this skit and several others can not be absolutely defined as notable, I would argue that was actually the nature of Monty Python. Some of the funniest bits of that show were not the sketches which are commonly known, such as Spam but really the segue pieces. I am therefore removing the deletion notice on the grounds that it is arbitrary, and that Wikipedia provides an excellent repository for showcasing Monty Python skits. There are after all 100s of Monty Python Skits and only a handful that have been made into articles in Wikipedia. I would also propose merging all proposed deleted articles into one related article to save some fine contributions from the wiki community. Thank You.--10stone5 20:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The reason that only a handful of sketches have been made into articles is because very few of them are independently notable. Indeed, a couple dozen or so similar articles have been deleted over the last few weeks for said lack of independent notability. Otto4711 22:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This sketch is independently notable. Much more notable than many/most of the albums by minor artists that appear here. Still notable decades after it was performed. Lou Sander 01:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please cite the independent reliable sources that are substantially about the sketch that you believe establish the notability of this specific sketch. Popularity is not notability. The existence of other articles does not serve to establish the notability of this sketch. Otto4711 11:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it is notable, it may need improved. --Buridan 17:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Easy to say. Where are the sources to back it up? Otto4711 18:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I just added two sources. There are more, but IMHO they are hardly needed for such a notable work of such a notable group. Lou Sander 20:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The first source is written by the Pythons and so is not independent. It also apparently simply a transcript of the sketch collected in book form. The second source is not about the sketch itself; it is about the Pythons' feelings about punch lines. Neither source comes remotely close to establishing that this individual sketch is in any way independently notable. Otto4711 21:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It is hard to see what you are driving at. This sketch has become a staple of popular culture, so there's very little doubt about its notability. Are you claiming that a single short work out of a very large body of short works must have independent publications about it before it can be treated as notable? What about dozens of reprints, reissues, mentions in commentaries on the body of work, etc.? Lou Sander 21:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Independent reliable sources that attest to the sketch's being "a staple of popular culture" would be a good place to start. Do you have any of those? Otto4711 21:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If someone wants to think that items of popular culture with decades worth of worldwide following, multiple reissues in various formats and languages are not notable, it's best just to let them keep thinking it. Lou Sander 22:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• So that would be a "no," then? Otto4711 22:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have no personal views on these sketches, but since there are sources there is no basis for deletion.DGG (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh please. You know as well as I that the standard is not "sources." The standard is independent reliable sources that are substnatially about the subject. A collection of sketch transcripts written by the Pythons is not an independent reliable source. An interview segment about the Python philospohy on punchlines is not substantially about the sketch. Otto4711 04:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Don't feed the trolls. Good Cop 17:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you have an actual reason for wanting the article kept that refutes the nomination or are you limited to name-calling and assumptions of bad faith? Otto4711 01:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per common sense and common knowledge. "The trolls will eat, the trolls will bleat, even if nobody feeds them." Cleome 02:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 13:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Screaming Mimes[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:BAND. Local band with only two albums to their credit thus far, one independently produced, one produced by a now-defunct label run by one of the band members. No third party reliable sources to establish notability. Sethacus 20:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per nom. Their forthcoming album also appears to be produced by the same, independent, now-defunct label.--Crunch 20:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Fails WP:BAND Bfigura ^(talk) 22:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:BAND and WP:MUSIC. --Domthedude001 02:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree that this doesn't meet WP:BAND and similar guidelines. Burntsauce 23:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 05:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

El DoboLocoPapo[edit]

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

Non notable myspace music artist ~Eliz81^(C) 19:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No assertion of notability, no record company, nothing --Childzy ¤ Talk 19:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete A7 - fails to assert any notability and nowhere near WP:MUSIC. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per above --Domthedude001 02:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Help. Could an admin or more experienced editor, if possible, please check the "what links here" link? It seems like several redirects are now aimed at this article as well. Benjiboi 21:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about the links- when the article is deleted, the redirects will be gone. I'll remove the listing from dab pages. -- Mike (Kicking222) 14:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually I was referring to[4] articles that have been misdirected here. Benjiboi 23:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Absolutely no notability stated; the article merely states "he's a young rapper with a couple of insignificant mixtapes." -- Mike (Kicking222) 14:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per nom.--Tasco 0 19:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep he should stay, because of the originality and that there is no copyright infringement. Also he is myspace notable even though there is no record lable. User:67.182.109.26 03:00, September 24, 2007
  • Wikipedia:Notability (music)--Tasco 0 19:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted per WP:CSD G11, blatant advertising. This is a notable company; at least, I had heard of it well before seeing an article here. We should have an article about it. But the text here was so irremediably bad that starting from scratch is necessary. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Escort Radar[edit]

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

Reads like an advertisement, would require a total rewrite, which nobody seems to want to do. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 19:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, possibly speedily. This seems to be blatant advertising to me, and I've tagged it as G11. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. Its an Advert.Operating 19:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Storm[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. A non-notable guy who plays in a non-notable band. Crunch 19:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree with nom, so much so, I nominated the band.--Sethacus 20:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doesn't meet notability guidelines Bfigura ^(talk) 22:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Be gone per nom. м info 05:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 00:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Lippert[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO, no google hits found that support notability - prod removed NeilN 19:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN - can you give me a chance to improve on wiki? When you AfD this article minutes after I submit a first iteration does not give me chance to comply. Please let me know if you have any specific objections to the article. I do have referencable material, however it may take a while to get this together. Thanks, Bpomykala 19:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: First, "minutes" is an exaggeration. Second, I originally prodded the article which would have given you five days to improve it. However you removed the prod tag without explaining why therefore the article was listed on AfD. AfD discussions also typically last five days. If you can provide sources within this time that show the subject meets WP:BIO then I will certainly withdraw the nomination. --NeilN 19:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Googled and nothing there. Not notable.Operating 19:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Given that the subject died in 1967, Google may not be the most appropriate means for establishing notability. --Malcolmxl5 19:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. True, the article's main author should find print references during the Afd discussion to establish notability.Operating 20:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I searched Google Books, which have sources from the subject's lifetime and came up short. I'm having a hard time seeing the notability here. He built a non-notable church and part of a notable one? Outside that, the article is a litany of unencyclopedic "X lived here, then he moved over there" statements. I'm willing to give the author the full time alloted on this AfD, but, right now, I'm leaning towards delete.--Sethacus 20:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voting to delete In 5 days, the only change made to the article has been a slide show, purportedly of houses the subject built. Unfortunately, that's not enough to satisfy.--Sethacus 15:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Prince[edit]

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

Bio is WP:NN. Fails to meet WP:BIO. Meets WP:NOT#DIR. Article is linked to no other notable pages, cites no credible sources. Contains mostly advertising and POV spam. Btl 18:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Of course he is notable, he founded one of the largest defense companies in the world. He is heavily mentioned in external independent reliable sources and there are many hits in Google current news. End of the day he is notable, the article just isn't written properly --Childzy ¤ Talk 19:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep And I question the good faith of this deletion debate. He's the founder and CEO of the world's largest PMC, is constantly in the press for it. Plenty of news articles. Does not read like advertising or POV spam, although it's not great. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Very notable. Type in "Erik Prince" into Google news and find ~70 recent mentions by such reliable sources as the LA Times, Reuters, Financial Times, The Associated Press, and Times. While the article could cite many more of these reliable sources, and it certainly could use improvement, it certainly does not warrant deletion. Also, no mention of any specific deficiencies has been made on the talk page or on this AfD besides to allege "POV spam". I also fail to see what could be construed as "advertising". johnpseudo 19:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. Seems like a bad faith nomination. -Crunch 19:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. As the founder of the iconic private military company, Prince is highly notable. However, because his company, Blackwater USA, has recently been in major headlines, this entry has been subject to extensive vandalism and should perhaps be protected from IP edits. There is extensive information about Prince in Robert Young Pelton's book Licensed to Kill. I would prefer not to be the person expanding this entry. --Pleasantville 19:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Google returns 2 million articles related to him and the name.Operating 19:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —[[Animum | talk]] 19:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rock, Paper, Scissors variations[edit]

Rock, Paper, Scissors variations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:OR, and WP:MADEUP. Here's a randomly selected bullet point in the article: Superman, Spider-Man, Batman is another variation. Superman beats Spider-Man, Spider-Man beats Batman, and (due to his possession of a Kryptonite ring given to him by Superman) Batman beats Superman. The actions are as follows: Superman - arm raised Superman style; Spider-Man - palms face upwards with middle finger touching palm; Batman - hold ring finger out with smug look on face. Completely made up in school one day, no way to find verification for this. -- Wikipedical 18:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as nominator. -- Wikipedical 18:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete beats WP:MADEUP. In fact, WP:MADEUP doesn't even beat paper. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 18:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Agree with nominator, what a load of crap =p --Childzy ¤ Talk 19:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and block article creator indefinitely. DS 04:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harrison Christian[edit]

Contested prod. Non notable if existing. The only proven fact is the existence of a video on youtube. The references are bogus. There is no website shortfilms.com, shortfilms.com.au and shortfilm.com have no information on this person. No information about person, company or films at the New Zealand Film Commission, founded 1978, website. No mention in the annual report 2006 which does not have a page 299. VirtualDelight 18:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As stated, shortfilms.com returns a non-existent domain. There is a whois for shortfilms.com, but that appears unrelated (someone in NY), and is not the issue at hand. The other ref stated is the New Zealand Film Commission (which is located at www.nzfilm.co.nz), and a search here returns one single unrelated film named Bonjour Timothy whose synopsis contains no name even remotely similar to "Harrison Christian". Google search had me five pages deep before I gave up. Yngvarr (t) (c) 19:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nomination and above --Childzy ¤ Talk 19:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This wiki article is the only notable reference to him. Operating 19:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom and above. --Fabrictramp 20:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable YouTube artist looking for his 15 minutes.--Sethacus 20:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above reasons. Bfigura ^(talk) 22:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per above. -Domthedude001 02:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails the everything test. RFerreira 04:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. dramatic 09:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete more hoaxage from the kiwi vandal, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amir Razjou & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonothan Ryan de Alwis. Pete.Hurd 03:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 13:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dragon NaturallySpeaking commands[edit]

List of Dragon NaturallySpeaking commands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT a manual. This is far more detail than is needed for encyclopedic coverage of the software. Toohool 18:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I didn't even understand most of the content of this article, the list is incomplete, and Wikipedia is WP:NOT for how-to guides. ~Iceshark7 18:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - Not a manual, no encyclopedic relevance. OSborn^arf 19:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not relevant to the project in the slightest --Childzy ¤ Talk 19:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I actually laughed reading the article (because speech recognition is in its infancy and very poor, hence why produce a list?). It is however a howto. Operating 20:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT. Bfigura ^(talk) 22:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per WP:NOT most definitly. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 23:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A suitable selected list of commands to give some ida of the function and capability of the software. Not a howto or a manual--insufficient to run the program; "not relevant" is an opinion, not an argument: explaining the function of widely used software is relevant to any contemporary encyclopedia. That one doesn't understand it is a reason to ask for expansion and explanation, not deletion. DGG (talk) 01:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Operating --Domthedude001 02:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This product is not a game, but if it were, the standard argument would be that we're NOT a game guide. Close enough. RFerreira 04:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No value for an encyclopedia. • Lawrence Cohen 17:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a manual. JIP | Talk 04:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It is beyond me how anyone could support the notion of including such a laughable list, but to each his own. Burntsauce 23:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The commands do nothing to benefit an understanding (not use, Wikipedia is not a manual) of the program, are therefore not encyclopedic with respect to their parent article, and additionally have no independent notability. This might be the first time I've completely disagreed with DGG, I surprise myself...Someguy1221 08:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, frivolous nomination. delldot talk 18:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Viacom[edit]

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

I looked, but I couldn't find "Viacom" in the OED. I have lost all hope 18:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep - nomination has no substance. Attempt at humor? -Pete 18:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. ELIMINATORJR 23:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in Houston, Texas[edit]

List of shopping malls in Houston, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

List subject is already adequately covered by Category:Shopping malls in Houston; the list contains no additional information about each mall. The only page that links to it is Portal:Houston/Houston lists. See Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes for the relevant guidelines. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I don't see where the list has violated any policies or guidelines in it's current form. It could use some expansion, though. It is also acceptable for categories and lists to co-exist. I added a "stub" and "expand" tag. -- Postoak 19:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not saying it's violated any policies, I'm just saying that it's generally unused and there's a category that serves a similar purpose. Admittedly, a category wouldn't be able to show the Houston mall articles that haven't been created yet. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 19:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia:Listcruft.Operating 20:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Listcruft is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline. -- Postoak 21:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article describes the pro's and con's of the terms usage. To me it simply describes an irrelevant list. Which is what this article is. I can produce a hundred lists like this every day, as i'm sure you can. Operating 21:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is irrelevant to you, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. See WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Postoak 17:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOT#DIR. There is a cat for this, the article is not encyclopedic. meshach 21:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is acceptable for categories and lists to co-exist. Please see Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes and WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. Postoak 02:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - each mall should be an entry in the Category:Shopping malls in Houston, we dont need a Article to just repeat the Category listing Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 23:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is acceptable for categories and lists to co-exist. Please see Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes. Postoak 02:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your correct, they can coexist - but if you read the section pertaining to the advantages of lists; have any of the suggested improvements been implemented (other than redlink). Sorry, but as it stands, it is JUST a copy of the Category listing. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is incorrect. The list also contains articles that have not been created and therefore cannot be categorized. Postoak 05:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep - Improvement + Effort has been shown Comments AfD is not the place for getting guidance on how to improve an article - comment to above - thoes are called redlinks, and I did say "(other than redlink)" Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 18:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the nomination, textbook directory content, which we are WP:NOT in the business of providing. Use categories. Burntsauce 23:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well go type "List of shopping malls" in your search box and see what we find. We apparently are providing this. It is acceptable for categories and lists to co-exist. We should review Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes. Postoak 00:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep: Delete this article, then delete all of these. It's all or nothing at all, and none of the others are slated for deletion. It's not fair. -- azumanga 18:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but not for the above reason. Keep because lists like this are probably the best way to deal with the less notable malls. DGG (talk) 03:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Context has been added to many of the malls included on the list; thus, it is no longer a mere list and contains more info than a category can. --Evb-wiki 04:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to Comment - what you have added is simply the first sentence from each article page. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 05:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And? --Evb-wiki 05:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that you somewhat improved the list. Have you considered a table format? It works rather well to communicate additional information about each entry. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just commenting that you're moving in the right direction- attempting to provide more information than just a category can. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I had not. I'm not big on tables, but it might help. [ps - I'm fighting edit conflicts.] --Evb-wiki 05:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good idea, I think the format at List of shopping malls in the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex would look good here also. Just need time to implement. Thanks, Postoak 07:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I just came across ((Houston Shopping)), which aside from being obnoxiously large, seems to duplicate the functionality of this list as well. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- There is already a template and a category dedicated to this. This article is creating a problem for the category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SirChan (talk • contribs) 08:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is acceptable for categories and lists to co-exist. Please see Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes. "Creating a problem for the category?" Please elaborate. Postoak 14:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to "Shopping malls in Houston" per added text and improvements. --Evb-wiki 11:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This one has had quite a bit of improvement recently. The article as it is now gives much more information than a category can for the end user. I say let's not merge this one based on the fact that any malls that are not worthy of a page by themselves will fit onto the list with no issues. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 03:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per JungleCat - lists and cats can co-exist, especially when this is a halfway decent list. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 03:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, citing ongoing cleanup. It's a good list, though I would not object to a move to Shopping Malls of Houston per Evb, above. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence provided that would satify the requirements of WP:V. Neil ム 14:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Games Workshop Online Community[edit]

Games Workshop Online Community (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There are no independent reliable sources supporting the notability of this community, and searching for it in Google and Google News does not find anything helpful either. The notability of the subject is not established and probably can't be established. It should be deleted as non-notable. Reinis^talk 18:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. Furthermore, the previous AFD for this article was a failure in that no rationale for the verdict was offered, merely vacuous claims. --Agamemnon2 18:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I'm slightly annoyed the closing admin didn't explain his verdict, though I understand that is not compulsory. --Agamemnon2 18:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Significant community, definitely moreso when the official boards were open. Since the closing of the official forums, the community has dispersed across many other sub-communities. The reason why searching for it is difficult is because it does not exist as one "Games Workshop Online Community". Search for the different games. They are bundled together in one article as a list with the company that makes the games as a common denominator. Shrumster 20:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm sorry, says who? Are there any reliable and independent sources that support this assertion that these communities are notable? Reinis^talk 20:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Online communtites are often not notable because of there transitory nature. This community may be long standing, but it doesn't add anything to human knowledge. Operating 20:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how this reason relates to WP:Deletion policy, or to any WP guideline.DGG (talk) 01:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It relates to WP:N and the general philosophy of Wikipedia, that it's not an indiscriminate conglomeration of information. Reinis^talk 11:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: the problems stem from the first sentence: "The Games Workshop Online Community refers to the registered members of any internet fora or websites specifically for Games Workshop's miniature wargames, including The Lord of the Rings Strategy Battle Game, Warhammer Fantasy Battles and Warhammer 40,000, and the influence that the community has on these products." Without a reliable source who has actually said this, the article is essentially original research in that it is describing a "community" which does not exist in any verifiable sense. None of the sites mentioned in the article would be notable on their own given a complete lack of third party coverage of them, and bundling them together under a made-up term doesn't make the group notable. Basically, it's a well disguised web directory. --Pak21 08:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: As to the sites being grouped together under specific games, I would refer you to this publication of the "Lord of the Rings Online Community": [5] [6] 213.202.136.136 21:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Judging by the metrics the site displays, my own personal site receives more attention in a week than it has received in a year. It's just not a reliable source. Reinis^talk 22:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. "My site is more popular than X, therefore X is not a reliable source." is not a valid argument. If it is, then some of the sites covered by the article such as WS, B&C, Waaagh and LO are definitely more "reliable". Shrumster 04:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • For a site or journal to be reliable, it needs to have a certain reputation, and if almost no one reads it, it can't have that, therefore it can't be reliable. It is a valid argument, and the other sites are more qualified in this respect, but still fail for other reasons. Reinis^talk 06:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Site statistics can be misleading, and it's neither a measure of reliability or notability. For just one example, it is possible that readers bypass the site homepage and go straight to downloading the magazine. Also, 34 pages is more than White Dwarf magazine typically has on LotR, and that's ignoring the differences in quality (much of WD's content is advertising).
          While mentioning White Dwarf, it is also worth note that articles from the online website are in WD, which is published globally (including tens of thousands of copies sold in the UK each month). The magazine's recognised position in miniature wargaming would also add weight to its use as a source in the article. --Grimhelm 17:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Whatever, I'm just saying that relative popularity is prerequisite for having any kind of a reputation. Even if the journal was popular (which is doubtful), it would still not be an independent source and therefore wouldn't be suitable for verifying the notability of the subject. Reinis^talk 19:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think what the original point was was that it shows there is a "Games Workshop Online Community" grouped around specific sites, and even as a primary source it is fine for that purpose. --Grimhelm 19:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm inclined to agree with Shrumster, and would say that the "Official Community" and "Worldwide Campaigns" sections are, in particular, well written, cited and notable. I think with regard to the unofficial sites, specific items of notability are given - among other things the effect that these websites have had on Games Workshop products. Although the "wider community" section splits into the individual games, as Shrumster notes, a look at any of the sites mentioned will show that there is overlap between them (and the different GW games); the magazine mentioned above does highlight the case of a LotR community existing, spanning three or four major sites (as it happens, two of these are the only specific sites mentioned here). The term "Games Workshop Online Community" is also used by GW itself (eg. [7]).

I think the article is interesting and informative, and explains the subject's importance on a miniature wargaming hobby to the uninvolved reader, rather than being "just a web directory". The article itself was also majorly improved after a GA review, and I'm sure with only a slight amount of work it could pass a second review. --Grimhelm 22:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are still no independent reliable sources affirming the notability of the subject. Reinis^talk 22:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the notability in miniature wargaming is fairly self-evident from what is given in the article, although for an example of a third party media coverage the Irish Radio station 2fm (in June 2003) comes to mind.^[8] Also, some moderators have been mentioned by name in rule-books (eg. A Shadow in the East). --Grimhelm 17:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do do you suppose being mentioned in a radio show could be verifiable, unless a transcript or a summary is published? Did the show talk about the whole "community" or individual forums? Should people use a time machine to hear what was actually said? Wikipedia's notability guidelines have a strict requirement for "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject", and it's not satisfied, so your objections are irrelevant. You are only asserting that the subject is notable, but aren't providing any adequate proof. As far as I can see, the article should be deleted as non-notable, because it has no relevance outside of the community itself. Reinis^talk 19:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's why it's not cited in the article, but I'm just mentioning it as an example that wouldn't be evident from the article's sources. But I still maintain the relevance of the community on (real world) gaming clubs, Hobby centres, independent stockists, production of miniatures, official rule-books; and of course the more specialised games that receive sole support from online articles and resources; all of which cites sources in the article. (emphasis added following reply on 26 Sep)

On a side note, I also think this AfD should be treated as much as a gaming AfD as an internet one. --Grimhelm 19:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you don't need a time machine. That's why we have citations for tv episodes, radio shows, movies and not just for online sources. Remember, just because you haven't seen/heard it doesn't mean it doesn't matter. Shrumster 19:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You say I don't need a time machine, but how exactly can this source be used for verification? How does one check it, by asking an anonymous editor on Wikipedia? Reinis^talk 18:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, all you're maintaining is your unsupported opinion. Reinis^talk 16:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Grim has said more than that. However, you seem to have a deletion agenda in mind, as evidenced by your adding the word "unsupported" to your previous reply. I can see that no matter what anyone says, you'll just try to blindly ignore/discount their arguments. No use arguing, so I'll just let the closing admin have his final say. Shrumster 19:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are trying to evade the requirement for reliable and independent sources, and I'm just commenting on that. Please bring the sources if they exist, or let this article be deleted, because it does not belong on Wikipedia. Reinis^talk 18:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The online communities, especially the ones for the Specialist Games are the ones that keep the games going, or indeed, write the rules (latest Blood Bowl rulebook being a case in point. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 18:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is just an unsourced assertion. Reinis^talk 07:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sources: big thanks to Tom Anders who has given up countless hours organising this project. Equally, we must thank to all the playtesters who have honed this version of Blood Bowl over the last two years of vault activitiy.
    • That's just for Blood Bowl - the other sections of both the SG games website, and the sub-forums have similar posts, and a look through the various users on the sub-forums (particularly Epic and BFG) will provide a list of the "Army Champions" (i.e. army list authors) for said games. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 13:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not an independent source, and, being not even trivial coverage and saying nothing about the community, does not support the notability of the subject anyway. Reinis^talk 18:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:V is non-negotiable. Stifle (talk) 16:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sources are appropriate to the claims made, per WP:V. Sources from the official GW website are not "questionable sources", as they have neither "a poor reputation for fact-checking" or "no editorial oversight". Primary sources are also permitted by policy where they do not present any controversial or non-neutral claims. It should also be noted that White Dwarf is a reliable source (as has been explained above); and it is also a third party source wherever "Wider Community" is involved. --Grimhelm 18:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 00:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lorrie Sprecher[edit]

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

One novel, a few poems, two albums. Not notable per WP:BIO. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As per nom. Operating 20:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems to satisfy WP:BIO: The person has created... a significant or well-known work ... which has been the subject ... of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Capmango 23:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep as notable, but needs some independent sources. Bearian 01:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep clearly notable--her books have been widely reviewed (Krirkus, choice, etc.) the info. just needed to be added. DGG (talk) 01:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete (non admin). Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 03:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SolidCAM[edit]

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

Does not even assert notability, seems to be blatant advertising. The creator of the article removed the ((db-spam)) template, and shortly after it being replaced, and after the creator was advised that it was the inappropriate for them to remove it and that they should use ((hangon)) instead, an IP suddenly removed it (which, incidentally, has only worked on this article). That's why I'm bringing it to AfD rather than requesting Speedy once again. It should also be noted that the creator of the page is User:DavidSomekh and the company was founded by Emil Somekh. Given the unusual last name, I find it hard to believe that there aren't WP:COI issues too.  — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 17:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:CORP. While the company seems to have some significance in its market, almost all citations in Google News Archive are press releases or slightly-rewritten press releases, so writing an article from independent sources would be difficult. --Dhartung | Talk 17:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Agree with above --Childzy ¤ Talk 19:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:Corp says there must be secondary sources, i just looked, and there are plenty. Operating 20:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Then add them to the page, or forever hold your peace. MarkBul 22:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I dont care enough to edit that page. I'm simply saying that the comment it fails wp:corp isn't true. Operating 23:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Wikipedia is a knowledge data base, and this value defintly contributes to this site. SolidCAM is one of the leading CAM softwares in the market and i'm sure alot of people are looking for this value daily. DavidSomekh 00:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC) — DavidSomekh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete per nom and massive failure of WP:V. Bfigura ^(talk) 22:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. DavidSomekh has a single purpose account for SolidCAM, which is obviously not notable -Domthedude001 02:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a real company that has been active for over 20 years, it should have a page in Wikipedia. PeteRoy 09:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC) — PeteRoy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 11:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CORP. Non-notable company. Keb25 11:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, borderline speedy G11/A7. Definitely fails WP:ORG; no independent, reliable secondary sources vouch for notability. Keep arguments so far provide no evidence of notability and appear to come from WP:SPA's. MastCell ^Talk 18:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable? give me a brake... You guys can at least check before you say things.
[9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidSomekh (talk • contribs) 08:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC) DavidSomekh —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 07:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Despite the WP:COI issue this software seems notable to me. I got Results 691 - 698 of about 265,000 for "SolidCAM " in google.[30] But obviously this article needs some sources to verify the content. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 07:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no sources to demonstrate notability.--Gavin Collins 23:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Did you see the 21 links above??? You guys have to be more proffesional when you say things. To go and say that a company is not notable is very easy. To prove it is another thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.5.20 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 00:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Frederick Holmes[edit]

Lee Frederick Holmes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Despite the acting credits listed in the article, this actor has received little to no reliable source press coverage. As noted at WP:COIN, the only person interested in editing the article appears to be Lee Frederick Holmes himself. In any event, Lee Frederick Holmes has not received enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of Lee Frederick Holmes to develop an attributable article on the topic. The topic fails general notability guidelines. If there are reliable sources, please list them in this AfD or use them in the article. -- Jreferee T/C 16:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree with nom. The only thing to even suggest he's real is this article. Poor fella doesn't even have an IMDb entry.--Sethacus 20:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He's listed on IMDb, Lee Holmes. He's not terrible good but he's notable, just. Operating 21:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Operating -Domthedude001 02:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Didn't see that. I searched IMDb under the full name. However, is there evidence to indicate these are notable roles? I'm a little leery about using the IMDb as it obviously contains info for more than one "Lee Holmes". Unless he played a doctor at ten.--Sethacus 03:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Are you kidding me? This supposed article reads like a resume. Where are the reliable non-trivial third party sources again? The only two cites are to an on-line birth certificate and ancestry.com? RFerreira 04:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It looks like he shares one film festival award for his only major role in a film that somebody actually might have seen. The rest are nn films or minor roles. Clarityfiend 06:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:BIO. Some visible roles in moderately successful films, but accomplishment is not notability, even when you're an actor. --Dhartung | Talk 06:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agree with nom and Dhartung, nothing to prove his notability given.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 12:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I filed the original WP:COIN report. Non-notable and a pure vanity article Malson 22:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. "He's listed on IMDb" is not a valid criteria for inclusion, and as others have noted above this article fails WP:BIO in the worst way possible. Burntsauce 21:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus. Eluchil404 00:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lois Jackson[edit]

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

Finishing unfinished nom placed by User:Ranchdeny; I abstain. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete Mayor of a town of over 100,000. However, there are no independent sources to suggest she's done anything noteworthy as mayor.--Sethacus 20:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Local politicians who haven't made a name for themself are two a penny. Operating 21:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Mayors are sufficiantly notable. It's not like she's a city councillor or anything. Plus being a mayor of a city over 100,000 is NOT a reason to delete an article, to the contrary in fact. -- Earl Andrew - talk 00:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Since being created years ago the only additions have been vandalism, 2 sentences do not make an article, it's unsourced, being a mayor or former mayor is not the only criteria of inclusion on wikipedia, no one maintains or improves this article it is unlikely to ever meet the standards, the small amount of info about the mayor is better mentioned in the article on the article about the town in question Bleh999 01:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have expanded and referenced the article so that there is enough in the article to meet WP:BIO. Aa mayor of a large town I am sure there is more that I have not found to expand the article even further. Davewild 09:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

per WP:BIO 'Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage'. & 'Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability'. Your addition is good but the information is not actually notable since the subject of the biography only gets a minor mention and is not the main subject of the coverage. Bleh999 14:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the coverage in [31] as well as in the google news archive [32], many of which are subscription so I can't access them myself so have not added to the article, are significant press coverage and so she does pass WP:BIO. Davewild 14:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — Sufficiently notable. — RJH (talk) 18:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. low notability for encyclopedic inclusion, insignificant and sporadic media coverage Jodes534 02:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revolution Radio Broadcast[edit]

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

Non-notable local radio show, most likely a vanity page, as the article creator appears to be one of the show producers. No indications of notability on the page, other than the show's existence. Delete MikeWazowski 16:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A quick google search shows up very few links to this radio broadcast. Moreover, it is difficult to verify the contents of this article from reliable third-party sources as well. Lastly it fails notability criteria as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There should be a word to describe even less than not notable. Operating 21:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More (band)[edit]

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

This band doesn't seem notable to me. Their label GB productions is very small and was obviously founded by Gianmarco Bellumori, a member of the band. There are articles about the band in Wikipedias of many languages, but they were all started by the same IP and formated in a very similar manner. I could neither find an entry about the band in All music guide. This is why it has already been deleted on the German Wikipedia yesterday Axolotl Nr.733 15:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:BAND. Moreover, a google search shows up no reliable hits for this band as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The group does not appear to have any third party sources that assert their importance. They appear non notable. --Stormbay 17:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Last.FM has no mention of the band. It mentions a 'More' who are from Quebec.Operating 21:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Searching is difficult due to the generic name, but I found this, this, this, this and this, all of which are third party biographies of the band. One of them is in English, and they were from a search of "Andrea Longhitano" and then "Andrea Longhitano" More. Admittedly, they don't seem to have much of a presence outside Italy, but I think they are notable. There are probably more sources too, they were just from the first page of both searches. (On an unrelated note, it would seem my adblock filters have no bearing on Italian sites.) J Milburn 22:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rodryg Dunin[edit]

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

Clearly a non notable person and fails WP:BIO. A google search reveals less then 500 topics. The two references only state 1) about his estate and 2) a list of Virtuti Militari Recipients, of which he is one of a few hundred. None of those sources are verifiable nor trustworthy sources. CO₂ 15:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There's definitely some unsourced content that needs to be trimmed from the article, but are we really saying our inclusion standards should be higher than Polski słownik biograficzny, the Polish equivalent of the Dictionary of National Biography? Of course google isn't going to be a good source of information on a Polish historical figure. I am happy to rely on the Polish biographical dictionary's determination of Rodrgy Dunin's notability. WjBscribe 16:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: the VM list refers to his son, so isn't relevant to notability of the article subject. Thomjakobsen 18:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, but that doesn't affect the fact that he's sufficiently significant for the Polish biographical dictionary to include him.... WjBscribe 00:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I wasn't offering an opinion, just correcting what the nomination said. Thomjakobsen 11:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I know we have used similar criteria for Canada and Australia and the UK, but I think in this case we need to inquire whether by any chance they list all minor nobility indiscriminately. Since WP does not list all minor nobility indiscriminately, then perhaps we should change the policy here, using AGF. I would appreciate it if someone could translate the entry there. I see no definite statement that the article was about him, or whether it merely mentioned him. DGG (talk) 04:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Mentioned in Polski słownik biograficzny, hence notable. If anybody can send me the Polish PSB article, I'll be happy to translate/verify it.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  06:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the original Polish text is at Talk:Rodryg Dunin#Translation needed. WjBscribe 12:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable enough for the Polski słownik biograficzny, the Polish equivalent of the Dictionary of National Biography, he is notable enough for Wikipedia as User:Uppland said. OldEnt ^§ 19:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Upon reading the article about the Polish Biographical Dictionary, I am convinced that the standards for inclusion in that publication are high enough to confirm the notability of this individual. It would be nice to have more information about the agricultural advances he made, as while sources relating to that might not refer directly to the subject, it would provide some more substance to the article. I don't doubt that the contributions were important, I just more would like to know HOW they were important. That's more just a suggestion for improvement, since I'm here. LaMenta3 20:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Certainly meets notability standards •CHILLDOUBT• 13:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Appears notable enough. • Lawrence Cohen 13:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This isn't "clearly" a non-notable person, clearly. Burntsauce 23:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 05:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Senior[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer. Has never played in a professional league. Mattythewhite 15:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Very week Keep he has played for three Conference teams, with quite a few appearances and goals. TubularWorld 17:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not a claim to notability. The Conference is a semi-professional league, so players who have only played there fail WP:BIO. Mattythewhite 17:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ArtVandelay13 18:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no matches played at a professional level as required by WP:BIO, and I can't see any grounds for notability based on anything else.... ChrisTheDude 21:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - none of his past clubs qualify as notable enough. Nor does his present one. He has not played at the required level. Ref ^(chew)(do) 23:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:BIO for not playing in a fully professional league. Davewild 08:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Has not played in a fully professional league. Number 57 11:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He came close having been in the losing side in the Conference playoff final last year but no, he doesn't meet WP:BIO as he has never played in a fully professional league. --Malcolmxl5 12:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. DS 18:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cuong[edit]

I suspect a neologism or WP:NFT here. I can't find any use of this term in this context through Google and the author has provided no citations. Deproded by author, who has only edited this article. eaolson 15:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No clear references on Google, the only hits I get are those where the term is a persons name. If it indeed "spread thru cyberspace and is used by people from China to Australia", there should be a clearer indication of this. Yngvarr (t) (c) 15:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Neologism. Keb25 15:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:NFT. Also potentially an attack page if this is a first name, but since it's not specifically directed, I suppose it can't be speedied. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sputnikmusic[edit]