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

The result was Speedy delete a7, group with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colinisation[edit]

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

Non-notable parody religion -- no Google hits aside from the Bebo page (which is certainly not a reliable source), no news articles that I could locate; page creator's username matches the title, suggesting a conflict of interest. nneonneo ^talk 19:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. seresin ( ¡? ) 05:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Pahlow[edit]

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

Fails to meet notability requirements per WP:Notability (people). No reliable secondary source material exists to establish notability. The only sources cited in the article are promotional websites, press releases, promotional pages for film festivals, and blogs. Neither Chris Pahlow, nor any of his films, nor any of their minor awards have received any press coverage whatsoever. Since the previous AfD discussion, his films have been deleted for lack of notability. (See recent deletion debate: AfD for Fraught. Supermarket Musical Massacre was speedy deleted twice for blatant advertising.) This article is likely a self-promoting auto-biography (see Frogshavelegs (contribs)). Dgf32 (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding previous AfD - The previous Afd discussion said Chris Pahlow's notability was determined by the films' awards, but since the awards were not covered by any independent sources, they themselves are not notable. Dgf32 (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable awards for non-notable films do not establish notability for a producer. Dgf32 (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A non-notable individual for whom the article attempts to demonstrate notability by pure numbers of non-notable events. The article is nothing more than a promotional bio by a series of what appear to be SPA accounts. --WebHamster 05:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, a handful of minor awards does not a notable producer make. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete no RS coverage, ghits only confirm that he exists, no evidence of notability TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 13:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. seresin ( ¡? ) 05:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rahan Arshad[edit]

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

Not a notable murderer; seems to be a case of BLP1E. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - only "notable" because he killed his family. I created this originally, but no longer feel it meets our notability criteria. Majorly (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Though newsworthy (at one time), the subject does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Deli nk (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Majorly. --JulesN Talk 20:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. P.B. Pilhet 21:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Ketsuekigata (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This person was involved in one incident which had no sourced societal impact or resonance. If page creator doesn't believe it passes notability, that's pretty close to speedy. BusterD (talk) 02:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Hiding T 16:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:BLP1E. KleenupKrew (talk) 18:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. seresin ( ¡? ) 05:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Holburne[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non-notable grandson of a notable individual. Pastordavid (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable. --JulesN Talk 20:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No references; appears non-notable. P.B. Pilhet 21:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Cunard (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Ketsuekigata (talk) 22:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Like the other guys say... Ecoleetage (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per CSD:G4. Stifle (talk) 11:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Forever (Say Anything album)[edit]

This Is Forever (Say Anything album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable references provided, and very unclear grammar. Dwilso 19:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I said it in the first AfD for this and i'll say it again: this is crystal ballery. The band hasn't even begun recording the album, they only released the second single from In Defense of the Genre on April 9. The only source is one sentence. This isn't any more notable (or in any form of completion) since the last AfD. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Album hasn't even been recorded yet; no verifiable info exists on it yet. WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - why not speedy WP:CSD#G4? JohnCD (talk) 21:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. No good references. P.B. Pilhet 21:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete, and so tagged. Nothing has changed since the last AfD - crystal ballery with no reliable sources. It's not even as well written as the previously deleted article. PC78 (talk) 23:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete WP:CSD#G4.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 01:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. seresin ( ¡? ) 05:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tokere[edit]

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

Dab page that consists only of two definitions, which violates WP:DAB#Dictionary definitions. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Probably could be speedied per G6. The dab doesn't actually link to any articles bearing that title. PeterSymonds | talk 09:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --JulesN Talk 20:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - neither half leads to an article. JohnCD (talk) 21:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No refs, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If refs are found, then I suggest a move to Wiktionary. P.B. Pilhet 21:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT#DICT. Ketsuekigata (talk) 22:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. seresin ( ¡? ) 05:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Best of Sonic the Hedgehog[edit]

The Best of Sonic the Hedgehog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Irrational list of games for a compilation; unsourced. 阿修羅96 (talk) 19:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete then redirect to True Blue: The Best of Sonic the Hedgehog. No sources (of any kind) provided or found. No evidence the video game collection exists, but True Blue clearly does and this is a reasonable search term for it. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'll point out the existence of the redirect The Best Of Sonic The Hedgehog as well. Just64helpin (talk) 21:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No sources; until then, delete. P.B. Pilhet 21:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete First of all, no source. Also, this is obviously a fanboy's idea of a funny joke. There is no way Sega would release a game with all of these games that they could get off of the Wii's virtual console, or Xbox live arcade. Besides, they already have Mega Collection and Gems Collection. They have no reason or motivation to make another compilation other than SegaSonic and Knuckles' Chaotix. A definate delete. Indigo Rush (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2008
• Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 03:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Looks like a hoax, smells like a hoax. Couldn't find any sources to back this one up either. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 17:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not getting many hits and no results on notable game sites: [3], [4], [5], etc. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - appears to be a WP:HOAX. Fails WP:V and WP:N otherwise. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If anyone still needs info for merging into Audicom, come on by my talk page & I'll restore the article into userspace. — Scientizzle 16:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Audicom (PC audio cards)[edit]

Audicom (PC audio cards) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The purpose of the page is for company's promotional purposes only and it violates WP:SPAM, WP:NOT policy. In addition User:SLedesma violates WP:COI (see: [6]) and appears to be acting as a meat puppet for confirmed sock puppeteer OscarJuan] owner of www.solidynepro.com, external link which violates WP:NOT and WP guidelines WP:Notability (web), WP:RS and WP:ELNO (see:[7] Jrod2 (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Merge Per argument above. This is a legitimate hardware product that should be merged to its software, the Audicom article.Jrod2 (talk)

• Delete – I would have no problem with an article based on the company, in that there is enough information to make a case for notability. However, an article on the particular product the company makes, where I could find no information other that the company website, is called SPAM. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I was referring in part for "Wikipedia is not a resource for conducting business". In addition, the subject of the article itself lacks notability. But, you are right, this is blatant spam, I just didn't want to sound like the Inquisition. Jrod2 (talk) 20:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete G11 (spam). So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've declined the G11 speedy - WP:COI does not spam make (in fact, the guideline states that editing in a situation where you have a conflict of interest is strongly discouraged rather than outright prohibited), and the language of the article on its own is generally encyclopedic in nature. While I'm curious to see if there are any substantial Spanish-language sources out there, right now I'm going to go with delete for lack of notability per WP:PRODUCT. --jonny-mt 05:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough. I'll stand by the delete though. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep to proceed with merge as the article was tagged prior to the nomination. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If you want to be technical about it, I Proded the article first (see: [8]) an hour later, a user deleted the Prod for Merge, so I tagged it for AfD minutes later. We don't use this criteria to vote "Keep" or "Delete". A user can tag to merge something that lacks of verifiability. That still doesn't mean it is an article that meets policy. Jrod2 (talk) 03:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – There is already an article about Audicom. I don't see the need for a specific article about the audio cards from it. If some this has any interest, it should be mentionned within the main Audicom article.--Gabriel Bouvigne (talk) 11:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!:
My name is Sebastian Ledesma, I am the initial author of the article in Wikipedia about Audicom. I've created it 2 years ago because I considered relevant information. I know that I work in the company that created the Audicom, nevertheless I've tried to be as neutral as possible. I did it on my spare time, the company didn't paid me to do it, and they they are not paying now (Saturday at 4 a.m.!).</ br>

About the ECAM: it was created from zero. Without copying anyone. Bonello recognizes that the theoretical principles of masking were know but that was considered a curiosity behavior of human ear. His novel idea was to use those principles to discard information and so 'cheat' the ear. Bonello knew that was possible, so they started the project of creating an algorithm, hardware cards and the application for that (ok, the hard work they did their engineers, but based on Bonello's idea).

About Audicom cards: I didn't tried to do SPAM. These cards are obsolete today. So I do not expect customers to come running to buy, nor I'am inducing its purchase, and on the other hand, the cards already ceased to be manufactured (so the company could not sell them). I was looking to documentate what was done. It wasn't the first audio card, I credit this (in my opinion) to Creative, who in turn copied the design of the sound generator card from Adlib, and added an option to play in 8-bit samples (but forgot put a filter anti-aliasing! so that sound was horrible!). Solidyne but if it was the first company that did so in Latin America (and one of the first in the world), from scratch and without copying the design of other manufacturers of audio cards (because there wasn't any to copy), and also with the ability to compress and decompress audio in real time and based on a psychoacoustics codec (primitive when compared with existing AAC, WMA and others, but worked for that time). It took time to do it, there wasn't Google to search for information, there wasn't software to simulate circuits lika Tina, there was'nt software to make PCBs (a technical cartoonist did it with technical pens Rotring), there wasn't IDEs (such as RAD Studio CodeGear) to make the software, but they finally achieved it! The card was ready in 1988, and the product in 1989. The company was so sure that what they had invested in the journey of 12000 km to the NAB next year to show what they had done. </ Br>

About Audicom: it was a real novelty by that time. It created the concept of broadcast from a PC. Nowadays such software is becoming a 'commodity' (there are even some free), much of them pretty similar (have a 'file manager', a 'live assist', a 'playlist' and so on, some even unconsciously copied the cursor red to indicate the title in play and the cursor green to indicate the next item!). Solidyne does not control that market, and I do not see that it will gain any market share due to hard competition. I didn't tried to do SPAM about it, if you look the domain [www.audicom.com] belongs to a Finnish firm with which we have no relationship. I consider worthy to include in wikipedia as others products as VisiCalc do it. The relevance of the product that it changed the market, large manufacturers of cartridges and tapes (like Shure) left market by the appearance of products like-alike the Audicom (or better).

About Solidyne: I've included the name because it is a fact, I didn't try advertise saying come and buy. Neither I've created an article in Wikipedia about Solidyne, given that as work on it could be interpreted as advertising. I've added the link to the official site for Solidyne because I respected the style of others articles on Wikipedia (such as Costa Cruises, Dolby, etc.). Besides there is no direct association between the name of the company and its web site (www.solidyne.com points to a U.S. manufacturer of industrial equipment).

About Bonello: He is an Electronic Engineering, graduated at the University of Buenos Aires. One of the most prestigious universities in Latin America (4 of 5 Nobels prizes that Argentina have received attended at that university ). Besides, he is professor at that university (technically speaking is the Chief of professors). He is also member of the Audio_Engineering_Society, has published several technical papers on it, and has been awarded by the same community [9]. Additionally has dictated several conferences in various countries around the world and has published several books on acoustic all existed before Wikipedia, so he didn't wrote those books just to appear in it. Bonello has his name (and also his money!), at least I'm young and good looking! :P.

About me: In my original edition I did not include my name (I did not seem appropriate). I laughed when he saw my name included. I was part of the development of Audicom at the final part of the development for Windows. I'm not trying to figure in wikipedia and I don't will do any movement so my name is included. I didn't have oportunity to knew engineer Demaria, but I know the engineer Ricardo Sidoti and I can personally testify that he is a brilliant engineer (Bonello didn't use the adjective 'brilliant' on me :)). Sidoti was a student of him(and Bonello was very smart when he hired him) and also was university professor at the University of Buenos Aires. All the work that I posted on Wikipedia I do in my spare time (possibly I will continue tomorrow on exposing and correcting the article), Bonello is aware of this and I do not give any directive to put on (sometimes I had very strong discussions with him, but always for technical questions). I've tried to add more information as possible (I have still more things to do, like transcode from ECAM to MP3 audio so all can listen how was the sound of ECAM), sometimes it took me time because I'm not very familiarized to write in wikipedia (there isn't a better way to write that this edit box!?!?!) (and I have to do in my free time!).

About the Diario La Nacion: It is one of the most prestigious newspapers in Argentina. It has a conservative orientation, was founded by a former president of the country, has more than 100 years old and several recognized spanish writers (Jorge Luis Borges, José Martí, Manuel_Mujica_Laínez, José_Ortega_y_Gasset, Alfonso Reyes, Miguel_de_Unamuno among others) have participated over the years in their editions. Their editors are very strict and you can trust on them as a very reliable source (I dont expect that the result of a soccer match will gain the headlines just to hide the country's problems). We didn't pay for them for an article (we never will pay for moral reasons). I am also looking for other references (journals, photographs of the stand, etc.). That's why I've created the article at first time, so it's registered, with an archaeological nature of technological progress and not as a way to boost sales. I do not think that a person will buy an audio-processor just by a card that the company did make 20 years ago. Today, I see that in any comercial show that the attendees enter into a stand just for the pretty girls, free snacks or any product with many lights that call their attention.

On the other hand I think it is an obligation of moral wikipedia include knowledge. Thanks to it, now we know that what is the papiamento. Only 0.0047% of the world population speaks that language, and its has his place in Wikipedia. And we also know that Leon Scott invented the first sound recorder which he called phonautograph. For years this was attributed to Thomas Edison invention. Only very recently it was possible to decode his recordings. In the same way I wish to record what they did these people over 20 years ago, when I was playing with a C-64.
.

Saludos! SLedesma (talk) 07:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete - per correspondence sent to the OTRS system, the sole claim to notability seems to be false and potentially libelous. krimpet✽ 19:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Leo[edit]

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

Non-notable subject. Article claims he helped start a notable company with his ex girlfriend however the actual company does not mention him. No independent third party sources found to support notability.

Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 18:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Cbrown1023 talk 22:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MuseScore[edit]

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

non-notable program - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MuseScore is worth to be noted in an encyclopedia, especially in wikipedia, because it empowers people to create sheet music. It is open source and free, and therefore perfectly suitable for collaborative editing between musicians. The MuseScore project started as a Linux project almost 7 years ago, but is since last year available on Windows as well. It is being used by many users world wide. Just give the article some time to grow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toemaz (talk • contribs) 18:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make it notable. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thx for the link, I missed it in the text above. Give me some time to prove it is notable. This whole Wikipedia is quite new to me so it may take some time. Thx Toemaz (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lacks RS coverage, nn software TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 19:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Of the free scorewriters available for Windows (open or proprietary) MuseScore is the most developed and feature complete. By Travellingcari's criteria Canorus and TuxGuitar would not qualify. NoteEdit and Impro-Visor would squeak by with one news item (see TuxGuitar, Canorus, NoteEdit, and Impro-Visor).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbolton (talk • contribs)

Comment Other stuff is not a valid keep reason, maybe the others should be deleted as well TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ...maybe the others should be deleted as well... Okay. Done, done, done, and done! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 12:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I disagree with the non-notable aspect of the arguments, which actually is the whole argument, because the software has in fact been noted. Close though.--CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 20:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - Nabla (talk) 01:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LinkBunch[edit]

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

Delete Non notable website, autobiography. Enga3213 (talk) 06:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Appears to be notable and reasonably established (going by Google). PeterSymonds | talk 09:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete. If it had references I'd say keep it, but without them I can't go with that. --JulesN Talk 20:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Ketsuekigata (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No WP:RS that can be easily found, fails per WP:WEB Gary King (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - Nabla (talk) 01:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Jamerson[edit]

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

No assertion of notability. Poking around (I'm a book retailer), his books both seem to have been self-published (if they were published at all, I could only find a record of one of them). Article was created by the SPA Adrock13, who hasn't contributed anything before or since. The article's also been tagged for not having any real citations since November 2007. Ford MF (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I feel like a tourist (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No refs or assertion of notability. Maybe worth a speedy delete. P.B. Pilhet 21:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No assertions of notability. Could have been speedied. Edward321 (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect to Races of Bas-Lag (note that AfD is not the place for requesting merges. Be bold and do it, or request it) - Nabla (talk) 01:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palgolak[edit]

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

Very small amount of info about a very insignificant topic in China Mieville's books that could easily fit onto the Races of Bas-Lag page. Tredanse (talk) 11:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect per nom. Ford MF (talk) 18:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per nom. --JulesN Talk 20:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect, per the above votes and nomination. P.B. Pilhet 21:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Races of Bas-Lag#Palgolak per all of the above. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - Nabla (talk) 01:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Gray (DJ)[edit]

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

From the looks of the article this is about a Northern Soul club DJ who now is on internet radio but it appears to be a self written CV. Doesn't appear to satisfy the criteria for WP:MUSIC. Starrycupz (talk) 11:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 12:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Zero coverage in secondary sources. Ford MF (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete autobiography of non notable DJ. No way to verify content is accurate and balanced. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 20:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --JulesN Talk 20:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately, delete: Author obviously took some time with this, but it fails to meet notability requirements, and it has no citations. P.B. Pilhet 21:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. seresin ( ¡? ) 05:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David M. Hayes[edit]

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

Page has been Speedy Deleted 4 times, restored twice (last time by me). The only reason I'm bringing it here is the question of whether being awarded French knighthood (Chavalier) is in itself enough of a notable achievement for such a bio article. I'd also note that it also appears to be an autobiography given that it has been consistently created by User:Davidmhayes. Currently the article doesn't even give the reason why he was awarded the knighthood. In England, knighthood is usually given for achievement or particular services to the country. No indication of the reason at the moment. My opinion is delete unless much more is added to the article. Pigman☿ 18:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as notability is not even suggested by the information we have here. Ford MF (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment—I added an external link to his personal biography, but I haven't been able to corroborate it with independent sources.—RJH (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I declined the speedy on this in hopes that an article about a Chevalier of France would prove to have notability. I'm afraid that the creator, of the same name as the article, so he should know, has not provided any further evidence of meeting WP:N. In reading the linked bio, I am still not convinced of meeting WP:N. Willing to keep an open mind and hoping for improvement. Dlohcierekim 19:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless salvaged On reviewing the lengthy history of this article, I feel that that there has been ample opportunity for improvement. The lack of improvement may simply be that there are not verifiable sources showing notability. Someone please let me know if the situation improves in favor of the article. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 19:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability The civilian honor is one of 5 given by France to a US Citizen in 2006. Equivalent honor is our Congressional medal of honor. Agreed about autobio. Recognition for 20 years of advancing french language and culture. Editor two books detailing French culture: "French and Americans: The Other Shore" and "French in your Face," a French/English dictionary of slang.Davidmhayes (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)davidmhayes129.44.86.161 (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)davidmhayes129.44.86.161 (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)davidmhayes[reply]

Equivalent is the Medal of Honor? Not a fracking chance. Nothing in the bio suggest any military service, let alone actions while in combat. You do our men and women in uniform a great disservice with this insulting statement, sir. DarkAudit (talk) 22:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The edit history is still there. Do not merely erase your comments as if you never made them. Use the strikeout button above. This isn't the Ministry of Truth. what was said cannot be unsaid. DarkAudit (talk) 22:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No good sources. P.B. Pilhet 21:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources 3 published sources: [10], [11], [12], Davidmhayes (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)davidmhayes[reply]

All provided by your own web page. Invalid as reliable sources. DarkAudit (talk) 22:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NN, WP:RS, WP:V & WP:COI.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk"

• Google news archive search confirms Palm Beach Post article reference searched for "David Hayes" +chevalier . Behind pay wall. Dlohcierekim 01:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The decoration itself seems to not establish notability. Note that Ordre national du Mérite is an award that can be awarded more liberally than the prestigious Légion d'honneur and 10,000 Americans [...] have received [the Légion d'honneur]. - Nabla (talk) 01:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the temple: the tenth crusade[edit]

Order of the temple: the tenth crusade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not indicate notability. Mostly consists of a plot summary. (EhJJ)^TALK 18:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I tried looking for some info in order to improve the article, but I could not find any. Notability has not been established through verifiable, reliable sources. I suspect anybody trying to do so will have a very difficult time. --SimpleParadox 18:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Searching for "order of the temple" and "michael powell" yields 7 ghits, none of which are about this book. I'm going to guess this is either unpublished or a hoax. Ford MF (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Ken Idenouye[edit]

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

Autobiography. Does not meet notability criteria. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Certainly does seem to be an autobiography, which raises questions regarding conflict of interest and neutrality. On its own merits, the subject's notability has not been established. --SimpleParadox 18:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable architect autobio. Ford MF (talk) 18:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the author. I absolutely understand where you are coming from. However I always wish there was more information available on the people that have created our environment and impacted our Society. Edmonton is one of the world's most northernmost Cities on the Globe. Who was the first Architect that lived here? What did he build? Who was the first contractor, doctor or nurse? These people may not have been "notable" but I wish there was some history or record. Why did they even come here? I believe that not only do we owe it to the next generation to provide current factual information on "Notable" people and events but we need to some how document the road that got us there. I am new to Wikipedia but I see even greater potential. I don't know if it is a link to Architects or maybe some sort of link to "Less Notable people" as you may refer to. I have run into so many people in my practice and in my travels that are amazed at what has been achieved in this City but without any knowledge of who did what and when. If it is a third party confirmation of my autobiography, I certainly can get others to verify it. Way up in Edmonton, sometimes you just have to do things yourself to get anything done. Hence the autobiography. If we were not these type of people, Edmonton and Fort McMurray and the Oilsands would not exist.

Thanks for your consideration in any case whether this gets deleted or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckidenouye (talk • contribs) 23:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment: I certainly appreciate the time you took to write this response, but unfortunately Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Also, Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance, in other words no original research is allowed on Wikipedia. Your autobiography contains both original research and non-verifiable information. You are welcome to add reliably sourced, verifiable information to Fort McMurray, Edmonton, and the Oilsands, but unfortunately your autobiography does not meet the minimum requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia. Cheers, --SimpleParadox 19:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per near unanimity among respondents (non-admin closure). The sole delete preference was "per Ford MF", where Ford MF recommended to keep. Subject meets notability guidelines per non-trivial coverage in reputable independent music publications, as demonstrated by Corvus Cornix. Skomorokh 00:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kid Harpoon[edit]

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

Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:BAND Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Seems like a good article, but needs reliable references. Dwilso 21:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If they WERE on XL Recordings, which is a pretty major company (they'd be labelmates with Radiohead) , I'd say they were notable, but the band's discography in the article itself doesn't indicate any XL releases, and there's no mention of them on XL's website either. Searching "Kid Harpoon" comes up with nada, and a quick search didn't come up with any notable coverage either. Changing to keep, on grounds of usefulness. Ford MF (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Ford MF. --JulesN Talk 20:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep But it does need refs. P.B. Pilhet 21:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep, this seems to imply notability. And maybe these: [13], [14], [15]. Corvus cornix_talk 23:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as above. I found my way here looking for information on the band, so it was useful to me, at least. --Grace (talk) 01:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Huh. Well, that's good enough for me. Ford MF (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. EdJohnston (talk)

Windows Black[edit]

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

Does not assert notability. Google search reveals some hits. Seems to be a nebulous collection of pirated software. (EhJJ)^TALK 17:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless someone can dig up some reputable secondary sources. I couldn't find any, and given the profusion of pirated products in the world, I'd say you have to come up with some pretty solid sources for it to pass the bar of notability. Ford MF (talk) 18:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No assertion of notability. No sources to even prove that it exists. DarkAudit (talk) 22:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are far too many variants of Windows to give this one extra notability. Per WP:RS and WP:N. Gary King (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tungsten pentoxide[edit]

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

Delete unsourced one-liner about a chemical - not all chemical combinations are notable and nothing here indicates that this one is. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or Delete. It doesn't seem notable; it might be worthwhile enough for a mention in the main article. --mordicai. (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Tag & expand. It has been brought to my attention that there is a category (& sub-cats) for these compounds, which makes me think this isn't just a dangling thread. Tag ((expert-subject|chemistry)) and ((chemical-importance)) & let expand into a stub, I think. Give it a chance. --mordicai. (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Needs expansion, but seems no more or less notable than the rest of Category:Tungstates. Falls outside my area of expertise, unfortunately (I can't really decipher the Google links I'm coming up with), but I see no reason to assume this isn't just a seed article in need of cultivation. The article's less than two days old. Ford MF (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; it's obviously verifiable from the more reliable of sources; it's unlikely that anything that could appear vaguely relevant to the article would touch on libel or even POV. There's only so many basic oxides and other simple compounds, so I see no reason to delete.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep needs to fleshed out, but that's what stub-tags are for.Yilloslime (t) 23:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep—sufficient sourcing to establish some minimal level of notability.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GMC Terradyne[edit]

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

Delete not all concept cars are notable, and this is one such. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Needs expansion and better sourcing, but it looks like it got reasonable coverage in the literature at the time. Ford MF (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've added some sources and info, so I think that should bump the article to a baseline of acceptability. Ford MF (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: Per Carlos. This is a completely forgettable concept car, which is perhaps made evident by the fact that the article's creator felt that two sentences was enough to adequately convey its importance. Hundreds of concept cars come about every year that never make it to production; some of them influence later models with their technological and/or design innovations, but this is obviously not one of those concepts deserving of a wiki page imo. I feel like a tourist (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep significant RS coverage from which to build an article TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 19:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keepseems notable with added sources. Given the timing and nature of the concept 'release', this article isn't likely to get bigger but it might be fine as it stands. Protonk (talk) 23:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The added information and sources make a big difference. The article is much better now, though I'm still not sure of how we should decide which concept cars are notable enough for Wikipedia and which aren't. This is not an important car, but I guess as long as there's information available on it, it's notable enough. Keep...I guess. I feel like a tourist (talk) 02:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Concept cars are not notable unless there's something very, VERY special about them. That's not the case here. (By the way, the article contains at least one huge inaccuracy: no 5000 Watt generator can power an entire house.)  Channel ®    21:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't want to be told Other stuff exists, but there sure are a lot of concept (Silly wiki link doesn't work, or perhaps I'm incapable of working it) cars on wikipedia right now. I would submit that the same thing that makes those cars notable (major press coverage, specific and notable designers, support from major corporations and display at international conventions) probably makes this car notable. That, in a sense, is the "good" side of WP:OSE. Protonk (talk) 00:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). Unanimous consensus discusses the subject's coverage in reliable sources that demonstrate its notability. WilliamH (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chukka boot[edit]

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

Delete unsourced one-liner about a nn footwear Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 17:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - plenty of coverage in reliable sources demonstrates notability. --BelovedFreak 18:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I had never heard of the boots before yesterday morning, but when the article Chukka (which used to be a redirect to Polo) was changed [16] I looked up the word and found several references to the Chukka boot, so created the stub. I was interrupted before adding any sources, and forgot to come back and finish editing the stub, for which I'm sorry. :-( Sources have been added now, by Belovedfreak. --Bonadea (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Expand: Chukka boots refer to particular style of boots, not neccessarily to a specific brand. Vans, in particular, are one company that has had a very successful line of Chukka boots. Go to any online shoe store, and you will easily find scores of Chukka boots from many different manufacturers.I feel like a tourist (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Plenty notable and as well sourced as we could wish for a footwear article. Ford MF (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Also known as boondockers, as anyone who has been through Navy boot camp can tell you. This style of boot has been around for decades, if not longer. DarkAudit (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Snowball keep. Well sourced and clearly notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 18:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our American Cousin (opera)[edit]

Our American Cousin (opera) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete unsourced one-liner about an opera by nn composer. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A cursory search turned up this article which seems to show some notability. I'll look for further information. (You did recognize the reference to Lincoln's assassination, right?) -- BPMullins | Talk 17:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep The sourcing's out there (e.g. [17], [18], [19], [20], etc...) the article just needs work. Dekkappai (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. The fairly "new" opera is not as much famous as any operas composed by Verdi or Pucchin at this time. However, it is based on the famous play with the same name and its notability is found easily by googling. It has several reviews by notable classical critic magazines as well.[21] --Appletrees (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - plenty of coverage in reliable sources demonstrates notability. --BelovedFreak 18:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 18:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. As pointed out above, sources exist. Ford MF (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. As a note to Diligent Terrier and to those who took up his arguments, an article cannot be deleted and merged due to licencing issues. Therefore, AfDs should not be opened to propose mergers. Merging an article does not need an AfD (but it does need consensus). Sandstein (talk) 06:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legislation sponsored by Ron Paul[edit]

Legislation sponsored by Ron Paul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An entire article on a U.S. Congressman's legislation sponsorships does not seem like it belongs in Wikipedia. I think we should merge the worthwhile info into Ron Paul's article, but delete this article and the parts that talk about every single piece of legislation the he sponsored - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 17:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and merge the good info into Political positions of Ron Paul and Ron Paul. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 17:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per Diligent Terrier, merge the good info into the article about himself and the one that simply lists his positions. Articles in the style of "Legislation sponsored by" sound like they have the potential to hint at non-neutrality through an implicit guilt by assosciation fallacy, which would be a POV grey area. WilliamH (talk) 17:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Nuke from orbit per nom and previous votes. Ziggy Sawdust 18:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per long-established consensus against merging, demonstrated at this article, Ron Paul, and the prior AFD. Arguments presented by nom are WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, and WP:NOGOOD. The other argument is WP:CRYSTAL: a comment in this style sounds like it has the potential to hint at an argument through an implicit fallacy which would be a grey area (it speaks for itself). What qualifies as ungood and why? WP:SOFIXIT. Further, nom has not attempted any of the deletion alternatives recommended prior to AFD: editing, discussing, or proposing merge (which is not done by AFD); nom has only added tags and failed to respond to an offer to discuss: see talk. FYI, similar articles exist for Clinton, Romney, Giuliani, and Kerry. JJB 18:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: I have notified the other editors of this article at this point. JJB 18:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I see nothing wrong with this article. It's large and well-referenced, so a merge would be unsuitable. As for deletion, I also disagree, as it's fully-verifiable with reliable sources and a good supplement to the main article about Paul. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Prior AFD !votes were 3 delete (1 nom, 2 per nom), 2 merge, 7 keep (1 strong, 2 speedy). Should never have been renominated. JJB 18:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: One of the bills mentioned in this article just survived its own AFD as debatably notable in itself. Several other bills have their own articles or sections of other articles. JJB 18:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, of course. Re-noms when the original AfD produced such an overwhelming consensus to keep just scream bad faith, sour grapes, and forum shopping. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep although I'd like to see a merge some day. I still think this was rather a bad idea and largely, perhaps entirely, redundant, but I can't muster the enthusiasm to propose a merge at this time. Deletion is not an option in this sort of case unless it's done right away. Many thanks to JJB for letting me know about this AfD. I nominated it for deletion first time round. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep: Honestly, I don't really like this article, but I can't find a good reason to support its deletion. Most (if not all) of the bills Ron Paul has proposed are non-notable as they are the Congressional equivalent of WP:SPIDER and WP:POINT. However, his legislative antics have caught the attention of reliable sources, Congressional Quarterly gave him a nod in their list of 50 ways to be a congressman for his Don Quixoteish behavior. Maybe a move to a more suitable title, like Congressional career of Ron Paul, chopping out the list cruft, and focusing the article more on the the collateral effects of and (significant) reactions to his antics is in order. If the AFD does close in Delete, I would recommend userfying the article to John or myself. Burzmali (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you very much for changing your vote from last AFD's "merge"! But I suppose the presence of V costumes at the White House this last April 15 probably does tempt WP:SPIDER. Please inform ArbCom. JJB 20:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - I was not crazy about this article either, and on first face it seems like notability would be a concern. But the lead paragraph does a great job establishing that notability, and the article is extremely well referenced. I also took quick issue with the fact that the whole article is a list of bullets: in the end it's obvious that bulleted lists are the best way to organize the information, and the formatting is impeccable. I find no good reason to delete this article. -FrankTobia (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as undesirably selective or nuke and recreate as an article more in line with the aforementioned Senate career of Hillary Rodham Clinton, or merge, as there already is a Political positions of Ron Paul article. According to the Library of Congress, Ron Paul has sponsored or co-sponsored 422 pieces of legislation, and yet a little more than ten percent are represented here. Why? Why those? I think a better way to go would be to create an article about his career out of whole cloth (and, of course, reliable sources), rather than make an incomplete list of his favorite legislations. Because clearly there is an editorial process here selecting what editors feel are the "important" legislations he's supported (e.g. the article omits such goverment-standard wankery as H.CON.RES.125 "Recognizing the health benefits of eating seafood as part of a balanced diet, and supporting the goals and ideals of National Seafood Month.") And while the legislations here are sourced, the editorial process to choose which ones get included isn't, which I don't think is a good thing. Ford MF (talk) 19:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you mind explaining how to obtain your list of 422 bills from LOC? The editorial process is the same as throughout WP: those bills which are deemed notable enough to merit listing in subsections of an article (whether or not they are notable enough for separate articles). Just like we have a list of commemorative days that includes everything not notable enough for its own article (such as National Seafood Month). (Of course since Paul represents many shrimp farmers, this sponsorship is not mere wonkery.) The fact that Wikipedians deem about 10% of the bills notable enough is not a deletion argument. I'll add that HCR right now. Note that is only the fourth bill which was cosponsored rather than originally sponsored, which should suggest the primary editorial process involved here. JJB 20:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Re: tallying his bills: LoC search, filtering by Ron Paul as sponsor or co-sponsor yields 422 hits. Ford MF (talk) 23:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep There's no good reason to delete it. It doesn't diminish other more notable articles (Wikipedia is not Britannica). SteveSims (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep too big to merge into any other article; information is relevant. Monobi (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Much of the legislation proposed by the subject has been the subject of controversy, and as such, is more notable than the regular day to day proposals in Congress. Also, it's too big to merge somewhere else. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Per all the previous keep arguments of the past AfD's. The article was good enough to keep before and I see no major decline in quality since the last AfD. Buspar (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep no valid argument in the nomination for deletion of this article. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It passed with a pretty convincing keep decision only about 4 months ago. If content has been added since which jeopardizes its viability, then revert back to the version kept in January, if necessary. 23skidoo (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. I disagree with everything proposed by the nominator, and cannot see how it correlates to Wikipedia policy. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per Diligent Terrier --Lemmey talk 06:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems to be notable. Yahel Guhan 23:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. seresin ( ¡? ) 05:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marupaka[edit]

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

Delete nothing to indicate that this surname is notable. WP is not the Nizamabad telephone directory. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - doesn't pass notability guidelines. --BelovedFreak 18:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per everyone. Ford MF (talk) 23:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Worcester Preparatory School[edit]

Worcester Preparatory School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete no indication that this prep school is a secondary school or is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Berlin, Maryland#Education. Worcester Preparatory includes a high school and I would support a separate article if someone is prepared to write one. However, the present content doesn't justify a separate page and a redirect is fine for the time being. It should not be deleted to preserve the history for a future possible breakout. TerriersFan (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect without prejudice per TerriersFan. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Terriers. Ford MF (talk) 23:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 18:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rola Dashti[edit]

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

Non-notable biography. Nakon 16:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The details presented in the article indicate this individual is quite notable in a number of areas - academic career, political activity, etc. Deli nk (talk) 20:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets notability criteria, sources provided in article establish this and a quick search shows plenty more available. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Looking at the article now makes it an utterly obvious keep.John Z (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Could use some cleanup and better sources, but passes the notability bar. Ford MF (talk) 23:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The nominator has given no reasoning for the assertion that this is a "non-notable biography". The article has several claims of importance and is well referenced. And how on earth did this get speedily deleted under WP:CSD#A7 when it said "Dr. Rola Dashti is a leading international advocate in women’s rights"? What policy was the deleting admin (who is the nominator here) following? Phil Bridger (talk) 07:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zenburn[edit]

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

This is a color scheme for highlighting text in various programming environments. Not standalone software; doesn't even come close to passing WP:PRODUCT. Contested prod. Jfire (talk) 16:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no independent coverage, and unlikely to ever get any. This is just a colour scheme someone came up with one day. -- Mark Chovain 21:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Hi, I'm the author of Zenburn. Yes, Zenburn is nothing special, it's definitely not a product, just a color scheme which many people use and have ported to different editing environments. My guess is that the page at Wikipedia seems to have originally been created by one of those users. I agree with the verdict to delete - it clearly does not reach the high standards which Wikipedia demands of contributions. However, I disagree with the comment "unlikely to ever get any [independent coverage]". 90.224.116.18 (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It already does have some independent coverage on several blogs[22]. It is extremely unlikely that a mere color scheme will get coverage that will count as a RS. Blogs are pretty much all we can expect, and I don't know of any particular color scheme that has attracted such level of attention. I agree that by Wikipedia's standards the article should be deleted, but just wanted to point out that the color scheme does have some level of notability. — Kieff | Talk 23:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Useless Comment. I am an avid user of Zenburn, and though I also agree that this article does not meet the important WP standards for inclusion (and should be removed), I will be a little sad if it is deleted; I came upon this discussion precisely because I was looking for information on this colorscheme. I wish there were a project devoted to recording passing minutia with as much attention to detail as WP, so that things like this would have a home. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.171.98.125 (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. seresin ( ¡? ) 05:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Kicklighter[edit]

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

Sources don't seem to show sufficient notability per WP:BIO NawlinWiki (talk) 16:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom. Nakon 16:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - plainly a talented and up and coming individual. However, he has yet to achieve anything notable and fails to meet WP:BIO. BlueValour (talk) 19:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Check the discussion, but per the rules as I interpret them, I should be allowed to be there. There is secondary sources, including news articles and press releases, blogs from independents, etc. The Dub Taylor project, specifically, is the first project to recognize the character actor and will be taken to film festivals early next year. In Georgia, I served on the first Student Advisory Council, which was groundbreaking because it was the first time students directly impacted Educational policy. I know I'm biased as to why it should stay, but there are no opinions in the article, it is strictly factual. Other people, such as Gabe Sachs, have edited their own Wikipedia entries as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by James Kicklighter (talk • contribs) 22:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BIO and for obvious COI. Ford MF (talk) 23:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Vanity article.--CyberGhostface (talk) 03:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. Fails by WP:RS and WP:BIO and WP:AUTO and WP:COI and WP:Single-purpose account and WP:SPAM and probably a few other guidelines we could throw at him. Also, any admin reading this should immediately block him for inappropriate user name. Qworty (talk) 03:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your own name isn't inappropriate, even if you are creating and editing an article about yourself that, yes, should be deleted per A7. Daniel Case (talk) 04:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) The consensus is that lists of ambassadors are notable. Darkspots (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mexican ambassadors to Serbia[edit]

List of Mexican ambassadors to Serbia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Utterly, utterly obscure topic - almost certainly of no interest to anyone Bazonka (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep nation-to-nation ambassadors have achieved notability, lists of them are fully acceptable, regardless of how obscure the topic is in some people's opinion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete seeing as the page is simply a carbon (red-linked) copy of this website, this should be eliminated. Wikipedia is not a mirror. Eusebeus (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.--Avala (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also keep the following: <massive block of related articles removed>.--Avala (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wall of text hits you for 10,000. You die Protonk (talk) 23:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avala, may I direct you to WP:ALLORNOTHING and WP:POINT? I've removed your mega-block of text. Be careful, that kind of editing is not helping and tends to have consequences. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 04:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I remind you that we are discussing a type of article here? So if this one is kept all others must be kept as well, if this one is deleted all others must be deleted as well. Also you have directed me at essays, not official policies per which you can remove someone's edit. You are not even an admin, you actually participate in this vote. I will return my edit.--Avala (talk) 12:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since when does holding the mop have anything to do with removing bad-faith edits? And since when are we discussing every type of the article? And since when can't people click the diff link I provided to read your WP:POINT violation? No, it is not a policy. But it is a behavioural guideline. People have been blocked for less, and it would do no harm to follow a standard endorsed by the Wikipedia community. And WP:ALLORNOTHING is just common sense. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 01:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will add it to the end of the section as a collapsable show/hide table because I have good will but I don't like your threats. I also dislike your unauthorized removal of my edits, especially considering some users have said "Keep per Avala" and then when you removed it, it seems they agreed to my one word statement saying "Keep" and not to my reasoning regarding other articles which must be mentioned. --Avala (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, you misunderstand. I linked to your edit diff, so any interested editor can easily view it. Your mass of text is unnecessary, and as this page is transcluded on WP:AfD, every time anyone loads Articles for Deletion they have to view your WP:POINT, which is extremely disruptive. And it is not a threat, I am informing you of the relevant policies and indicated that administrators (of which I am not one of) don't tend to look kindly on their violations, I can't enforce these rules any more than you. It was a friendly warning, no need to get aggressively defensive. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 09:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not revert my edits and remove my replies. You may have tried to place it in a collapsible table but in order for that to do anything the table has to actually be collapsed. And even so, it is a completely unnecessary and prime example of WP:POINT. Pray tell, what are you trying to achieve by transcluding your list that I don't by linking to it? +Hexagon1 ^(t) 01:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. These lists feature notable persons and are of historical and political interest. Diplomatic relations and the people who conduct them are of great encyclopedic significance. As such historical information is in the public domain, it being taken from a government website is not a reason to delete, but good sourcing. Sandstein (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Avala. If all of those lists exists we either keep this one, or delete the whole lot of them. --JulesN Talk 20:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Avala. Ford MF (talk) 23:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Despite it being only obscure to non-mexican/serbians this is notable and what makes wikipedia a good encyl. -Kain Nihil (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It might have been a bit POINT-y in its delivery, but Avala's, er, point is well taken. I see nothing to suggest why this article isn't viable and encyclopedic. It also has potential for expansion into, perhaps, discussion of activities, accomplishments, etc. I might recommend removing the redlinks for now. I'm not against them, but on lists like this I do sometimes find them to be a bit of an AFD magnet as it suggests the topic itself isn't notable. If there is a strong feeling that ambassadorial list articles shouldn't be allowed, then I recommend interested parties seek a policy change similar to that pursued by those opposed to articles on TV episodes, etc. 23skidoo (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but only if Avala stops trying so hard to make his point. Ambassadors are inherently notable. As Carlossuarez46 points out, "obscure" does not mean "non-notable". Klausness (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. seresin ( ¡? ) 05:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

County Dublin Beekeepers' Association[edit]

County Dublin Beekeepers' Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable organisation whose only claim to fame was coverage in a TV documentary on beekeeping. A Google search finds mentions only in other beekeeping sites. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Julesn84 (talk) 16:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no indication or claim of notability. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and WP:N. Guliolopez (talk) 23:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't agree but I'm realistic enough to know that my ignorant & subjective opinion doesn't count for much. Dublinblue (Simon in Dublin) (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted, non-admin close TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 19:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beak 'em Hawks[edit]

Beak 'em Hawks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't confirm either the current version of the article or the previous version through a gsearch. Phrase does get about 2700 non-wiki ghits, but I'm not convinced these show notability. Fabrictramp (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's not really fair to judge this article on the most recent, childish, edit. However, looking at the previous versions, I don't think this is notable even in Lawrence, Kansas. There are few cheers that are familiar off campus ("Hook 'em Horns" or "We Are Marshall" are some of the exceptions). Even if notable, the reliability of the information is in question, and the lack of reliable sources might be a clue to the obscurity of this term. Mandsford (talk) 16:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Julesn84 (talk) 16:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as 'obviously' nn. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Only exists to disparage the "creator" of the phrase. Rock Chalk, Jayhawk is notable and unmistakably linked to the University of Kansas. This one is as generic as they come. DarkAudit (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. seresin ( ¡? ) 05:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Waverley Action for Youth Services[edit]

Waverley Action for Youth Services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Regionally notable, but not Wikipedia notable. Kingturtle (talk) 15:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lacks RS coverage necessary to establish notability TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 17:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, a worthy cause? Definitely. But probably not notable yet, due to lack of third-party references. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A very clear consensus that this athlete meets notability standards. Incidentally, there is a further source available here. If the nominator wishes to pursue a merge/redirect then this should be done separately as an editorial action. (Non-admin closure.) BlueValour (talk) 03:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dario Poggi[edit]

I want to make something very clear from the get-go of this AfD - I am NOT attempting to get this page deleted - I only want to see it converted into a redirect. I attempted to do this on my own, but was reverted; therefore I am bringing the issue to AfD. Here's my simple rationale. In this AfD, it was decided, for various reasons, that WP:ATHLETE does not supercede Wikipedia's general WP:N requirements. In cases where there are no sources and it is impossible to write a neutral article about an individual, an athlete page redirecting to a relevant list is permissible. Speculation is not good enough; saying that "there may be sources" is irrelevant. I have performed a good-faith search, and the onus is, and always has been, on the person who adds the material to provide notability and sourcing. There are literally hundreds of pages on Wikipedia that say nothing but "So and so was a bobsledder from country X who did not medal at the Olympic games" and have no potential for expansion. There is nothing that could not be presented in a bigger list. Cheers, CP 15:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - per CP. Chris (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - He competed in two Winter Olympics and did finish in the top ten in one of them. It also fits the notability requirement of WP:BIO regarding athletes. Changed from redirect after some thought and review. Chris (talk) 12:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per CP. Julesn84 (talk) 15:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Oppose There hasn't even been a talk page created for the article. After the redirect, then the revert, IMHO the next step is discuss on the talk page.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Finished sixth is notable enough. I think its important to counteract systematic bias and include people from early periods. It is a shame if there isn't much info about but I genuinely believe the sportsman is notable enough ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. An olympic athlete is notable. Since he competed in two winter olympics the redirect to one of the events (and not even the one the article indicates was his best result) was clearly inappropriate and the revert was correct. Quale (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect appropriately. The guy finished sixth. How far down the ladder do we go for Olympic notability? Seventh? Eighth? Dead last? Ford MF (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Olympic Athletes are not notable in their own right. According to our Olympics article, there are roughly eleven thousand athletes competing in any given Olympiad, and clearly we do not need an article on every single one of them. Ford MF (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why not? Wikipedia isn't paper. Zagalejo^^^ 02:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't think every competitior should have an article either. but I certainly think Top 10 fits notability and competing in two olympics. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 12:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Cube lurker. Please keep AfD for Article for deletion. Editor disputes go elsewhere and step 1 was Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • AFD has been the only way to get any serious discussion on this important issue going, so I stand by my decision fully. I've tried to discuss things identical Olympic athlete issues numerous times on other forums and nothing - either for or against my ideas - ever comes out of it. Per WP:IAR if a rule prevents you from improving [...] Wikipedia, ignore it. Cheers, CP 00:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Since this guy played in two Olympics, there's no obvious single target for a redirect. An individual article is more appropriate in this case, even if the article is very short. There's nothing wrong with simply saying as much as we can about him. After all, articles in real encyclopedias vary wildly in length.

Out of curiosity, where did you search? I think the best source of information would be Italian newspapers from the 1930s and 1940s, most of which won't be archived online. Zagalejo^^^ 02:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never say anymore what kind of searching I do for two reasons: For one thing, people just use it as an excuse to tear apart your argument but, more importantly, what everyone seems to forget is the onus is on the person who adds the material to do the searching to prove notability and the existence of sources. If we did it the other way (ie. the person who wants to delete has to prove non-notability) then nothing aside from obvious hoaxes would ever get deleted, because people could just say "well there could be sources. I will say that Google was not my only search mechanism. I've kind of given up on this anyways and decided to rant on my user page instead. Cheers, CP 13:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - official 1936 Olympic report source added to article. Chris (talk) 12:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would think so Zagalejo. I;m certain there would something in Italian libraries and newspapers on it. The Internet is still really in its infancy, but I am certain over time more info will spread online. But we can't ignore people because google isn't coming up with the goods. If they wer researched I'm sure they could be expanded. It is partly our task I think to get stuff onto the web that has never been here before ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 12:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, as per above, we can't assume that everyone is notable despite an absence of Google sourcing. It's an imperfect method, but it's certainly better than saying "let's speculate that this person is famous even though we have no evidence," which is why the onus is on the person who "gets stuff onto the web that has never been here before" to provide those offline references. Again, as per above, I've kind of given up on caring anymore. Cheers, CP 13:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It used to be accepted that Olympians were inherently notable, by virtue of their accomplishments. As long as we can verify that they played in the Olympics, I don't see any problems. Zagalejo^^^ 23:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Just participating in the Olympics meets established notability guidlines for athletes. Edward321 (talk) 23:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. per WP:ATHLETE: Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports. The article is thin, but that is to be expected when the article is about someone from the 1930s in a non-anglophone country. Participation in the Olympics illustrates that you are top-of-the-field at the national level. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:ATHLETE. I find Blofeld of Spectre's reasoning compelling. We know Poggi is notable, so we should have this article. What a shame: 1948 should have been his fourth Olympics, not his second, in a different world. Darkspots (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn with consensus to keep. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marguerite Knight[edit]

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

nn unsourced Ziggy Sawdust 15:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — "Unsourced" does not mean "unsourcable." That an article does not have any sources listed is not a valid reason to delete; rather, the correct solution is to find sources. Just because you're not willing to do so yourself--just because you're more interested in deleting new articles and driving away new contributors just because you've never heard of the subject and would rather mindlessly and lazily click a button than actually do some real, meaningful, constructive work--doesn't mean you should try to make it impossible for others to do so as well. Your activities over the last couple of days are a real problem; you are going WAY overboard with Twinkle. I suggest you stop for awhile and reconsider whether or not you're doing any actual good. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep From the same site in the other AFD. [[23]]. This article got 180 seconds, with a litle mote time further references are likely available.
• Keep per Kurt Weber. See similar argument wrt Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Devereux-Rochester. Julesn84 (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because of Presidential Medal of Freedom, OBE, and Croix de Guerre listed at [24].--Michael White^T·C 16:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: There's not a lot on which I agree with Kurt, but he's dead on accurate here. Exactly what fact checking could the nom have done in less than 180 seconds? Nom has already been blocked for using a bot to indiscriminately speedy and AfD, and it doesn't seem to have made much of an impression. I'm almost comfortable with declaring this a bad faith nomination.  RGTraynor  16:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Kurt Weber and RGTraynor. I'm not sure if this is bad faith or ignorance, but the end result will be the same if this keeps up. Please go read WP:BEFORE before someone blocks you for disruption. Bfigura ^(talk) 16:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw this entire mess because I was a moron to nom it in the first place Ziggy Sawdust 18:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A very clear consensus that competing in the Olympics meets notability standards. (Non-admin closure.) BlueValour (talk) 00:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Bozon[edit]

Really nominating as a test case. I don't believe that someone who's sole accomplishment is to have finished 21st in the bobsled at the 1936 Winter Olympics is notable. Julesn84 (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - WP:BIO on athletes on "competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level of amatuer sports with secondary sources published about them." The Winter Olympics in bobsleigh are the highest level of competition outside of the FIBT World Championships and should be kept. Chris (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC) (Changed back to keep after some thought and consideration. Chris (talk) 12:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep. Cheers Chris. Should have checked that myself. Query: How does one withdraw a nomination for AfD? Julesn84 (talk)

Keep/Weak Redirect per CP.Julesn84 (talk) 15:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect Per my argument in this AfD. Cheers, CP 15:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per CP Chris (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Redirect where? I'm assuming there's a list of bobsled competitors or 1932 Olympic competitors, where the exciting story of Mr. Bozon's 21st place finish can be recounted ("Sacre bleu, zere were twenty people who finished ahead of me!" he said). Mandsford (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Olympic athlete is notable. Redirect poses problems, as if more information becomes available (birth and death dates and places, etc.) there isn't a natural place to merge it in any likely target. Redirect also defeats categorization, and is problematic in lists that then may link to a redirect to themselves. It's best the way it is. Quale (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If I may make an analogy here; even if you make it to the Superbowl and lose, you're still a notable football player. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets standards for notability. Edward321 (talk) 23:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was The result was Keep. Nomination withdrawn with no delete rationales. NAC. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speed Racer (2008 video game)[edit]

Speed Racer (2008 video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

nn crystal-balling unsourced Ziggy Sawdust 15:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]