< April 23 April 25 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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 (G7) by Angusmclellan. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Borgue+(stewartry)[edit]

Borgue+(stewartry) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Mistake while creating new page for Borgue (Stewartry). Have created Borgue disambiguation page. OldSpot61 (talk) 23:50, 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. Ty 00:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Grecco[edit]

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

Somewhat lacking notability, needs references, and very few external links on this subject, which are npov. Basketball110 23:36, 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 with YFZ Ranch. Does not pass notability on its own. Dreadstar † 07:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rozita Swinton[edit]

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

this individual is not notable for anything other than making hoax phone calls. no relevance to where she deserves a page on Wikipedia. Naradasupreme (talk) 23:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

141 of about 322 for Rozita Swinton.
I seldom use G-news, but i'd have used quotes, and that still gives
135 of about 306 for Rozita-Swinton.
I note that these include the international English-language press, and the Denver Post, which is about neck-and-neck in the circulation race with its tabloid rival.)
* Lest i create confusion, this is not to say that a keep can't later be reversed, by cooler heads. It says that what they are reversing is the judgment about whether the subject achieved notability (either at the time of the keep or later), and not about whether the keep voters' predictions were accurate. If you see evidence that someone's argument is based on supposed future notability, or is mistaken about whether notability has already been achieved, drop a flag on that play, but don't counter it with your own predictions.
--Jerzy•t 06:09, 29 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 without prejudice to continued discussion about a merger. This was an ill-considered renomination. Again, AfD is not the proper forum to discuss mergers. The WP:POVFORK argument would not seem to apply, because as of this writing the subject of the "celebrations" article is merely addressed in a brief section in the "reactions" article, which is in keeping with WP:SS. (That's not an opinion about the content at issue, including its merits, encyclopedicity or neutrality.) Sandstein (talk) 10:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I have already nominated this article for deletion three weeks ago, the result was "not delete" and a recommendation to discuss merging the article. So why am I nominating the article for AfD again now? Because a new article has been created: International reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks, and discussions happened on whether to merge/delete the celebrations article, no consensus was reached about that, and that's why a deletion review is needed here. The way I see it, the celebrations article is a content fork of the international reactions article, and arguably a POVFork, the celebrations article covers a minor event in the context of the reactions to the Sept 11 attacks, and does not include any significant information that the reactions article does not . Imad marie (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, there is nothing to merge, all the significant information is already covered in International reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks#Celebration of some Palestinian protesters, and there is no need for a fork article.Imad marie (talk) 11:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify or explain the "clearing up misconceptions" point? And clarify whether you've read the other article which also includes all this information? --Nickhh (talk) 12:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant is that it clears up a common misconception (which, sadly, a lot of Americans have) that all of the Middle east was celebrating and having a good time after the 9/11 attacks. The article in question doesn't come off as anti-Palestinian to me, but I understand the issues and realize that not everybody in the Middle east is an evil terrorist so my opinion of whether or not it is. This article confirms that only a select few actually celebrated afterwards, but it's more complete than a small section in the big 9/11 article. It would clog up the reaction article to add this entire page into it, but without all that extra info I don't feel like there's enough to the story. Celebration of the 9/11 attacks is a big issue and need a big article. And also, there's nothing wrong with highlighting what SOME people did. The FLDS is molesting kids, but that doesn't mean all Mormons are child molesters. --PÆonU (talk) 13:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how you see the article as not being anti-Palestinian, the article concentrates on the celebrations by a minority, and it ignores the fact that most of the Muslim/Arab leaders condemned the attacks. The way I see it, this article is a clear POVFork anti-Palestinian propaganda. Imad marie (talk) 10:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - see below, response to B.Wind. --Nickhh (talk) 09:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - no, this nomination is not in bad faith and perhaps you should read up a bit on the history of what's going on here before making that accusation. The reasons for bringing a second AfD (which is clearly what this is rather than a formal deletion review, even if those words are used a bit loosely above) are clearly explained by the nominator. Nor is there any attempt to hide the fact that this is a second nomination. It has been difficult to work out the best procedure for what to do here, because everything has happened back-to-front (ie the "fork" article has existed for a long time, and the wider and more balanced article has only just been created and now expanded). This has led to several merge or delete processes, which have taken place at different points in the development of the bigger "Reactions .." article. Not to mention different advice from different people - eg here the nominator was advised to go for AfD, if all the relevant material had already been merged (which it has been, since Sandstein's original closing comments). --Nickhh (talk) 09:34, 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. As pointed out by DGG, this is a vanity article, and there is no meaningful content in the history to preserve. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of publications by Robert Cialdini[edit]

List of publications by Robert Cialdini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I am not sure which policy to quote, but I am quite sure that Wikipedia is not the place for the detailed list of publication of some academic... Goochelaar (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While "it is useful" is known not to be a good reason to keep an article, I believe than anybody interested in somebody's complete list of publications may well refer to specialised web pages (for instance, the personal page of the author, or bibliographical sites), which are, or should be, linked in the main article. As it is, this article looks useful like a timetable or a telephone guide: i.e., it might indeed be useful, but not encyclopedic. Goochelaar (talk) 09:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like someone with a user name identical to that of the webmaster of Cialdini’s web site[1] simply copied Cialdini’s CV into the main article last November 30, causing the article to become too bloated. As a result, another editor chose to move the list of publications into a new article rather than remove information that is far too detailed for Wikipedia. I propose the following:
1. Revert the Robert Cialdini article to the version before the CV was copied into the article.
2. Redirect the List of Publications article to the main Cialdini article. The main article already had reasonable list of representative publications, so a merge is not necessary.
3. Finally, incorporate good faith edits made since last November and include an external link to his CV for anyone who wants this level of detail.
If there is consensus to do the above, I am willing to do the work.
FreeKresge (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your solution is one I can live with. Deor (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would also be willing to accept the compromise if it is a redirect without deletion as it is a legitimate search term and we would also keep editors' contributions public. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...but stand my original opinion that an article like this has no place in WP. Goochelaar (talk) 07:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. On second thought, delete is a better option here, per DGG's comments. Nsk92 (talk) 02:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be some disagreement about whether to redirect the List of Publications article or to delete it entirely, so I will leave that up to the closing admin. I personally fall in the “redirects are cheap” camp, but I have no strong opinions either way and doubt that it will be a common search term.--FreeKresge (talk) 17:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
exactly what is there valuable in the contribution history? DGG (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should any of those who edited the article ever run for adminship, it is beneficial for those of us who are not admins and cannot see deleted contribs to be able to get as full a picture as possible of their contribution history. Because we can redirect this page to Robert Cialdini, I see no harm in doing so. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It hardly has a complex history: there are three editors, one (already an admin) who split it from Robert Cialdini, one who tagged it for AfD and one who added a couple of external links. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Grand Roi, what you say about preserving histories could be said for any and all articles do be deleted. So, we should never delete anything, just in case? Goochelaar (talk) 07:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We should delete hoaxes, copy vios, and libel. But when it is not a hoax, copy vio, or libel and has a redirect location, instead of deletion, we should redirect. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:27, 1 May 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. Wizardman 20:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Connect2edmonton[edit]

Connect2edmonton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unable to find any independent reliable sources that would help establish notability; the article as written does not even establish it and thus would theoretically qualify for speedy deletion. A google search turns up a decent number of results, but most of them are forum posts or blog posts and thus not reliable sources. Veinor (talk to me) 22:32, 24 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, Greeves (talk • contribs) 22:06, 30 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. - Philippe 23:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reddy Surnames[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a genealogy database, nor is it a surnames dictionary. Corvus cornixtalk 22:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Many Indian castes seem to be jumping on this listcruft bandwagon. Potatoswatter (talk) 22:26, 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 WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). Clear consensus discusses that the subject is notable through significant indepdendent coverage from reliable sources. WilliamH (talk) 18:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abbotsford Traditional Secondary School[edit]

Abbotsford Traditional Secondary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Small town school, little to support notability Oo7565 (talk) 22:01, 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. - Philippe 23:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beaten by Them[edit]

Beaten by Them (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band. Article is written by a usercalled "logicpole", which just so happens to be the name of their production company (Do google) so "conflict of interest" comes in as well. CyberGhostface (talk) 21:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And they make it so obvious too. Whenever I look through the CoI list I always go for the ones where the username is the same as the article name first.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:44, 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. Fram (talk) 08:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

90:00 Magazine[edit]

90:00 Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete Not notable. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete references all point to their own website. Maybe one day they'll be mentioned somewhere else. Potatoswatter (talk) 22:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
prod'ed. Usually it's better to do that first. Potatoswatter (talk) 22:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. BlueValour (talk) 02:05, 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. Following the withdrawal of the nomination there was unanimity that the subject meets notability requirements. As a post-AFD editorial matter the references need to be moved inline to assist verification and I shall amend the tag accordingly. (Non-admin closure.) BlueValour (talk) 23:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bryanston Pictures[edit]

Delete No evidence that the company was a notable production entity Ecoleetage (talk) 21:27, 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 Transwiki to Wiktionary. Black Kite 18:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foodie tours[edit]

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

Neologism. There appear to be a number of commercial sites that use the term [2] however WP:DICT Deadly∀ssassin 21:04, 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 as follows: (and sorry for the length, this one was not easy) If we count !votes, there is not a clear consensus to keep or delete.

But we don't count votes, we evaluate the notability and other factors of the subject as made in the keep and delete arguments presented.

On review there is not an overwhelming argument here that outweighs all the rest. Some points:

On balance, evaluating all of the sources of notability, and being extremely charitable in doing so, the subject is very very marginally notable. In view of the poor sourcing of the article, the unlikeliness of better sources appearing in future, absent some other activity, and the tendency of the article to carry attack material for periods of time, and in view of our mandate to do no harm, and that having no article at all is better than having an article that cannot be improved, and the emerging consensus that we should delete marginal notability BLPs absent a clear and compelling consensus to keep, this is a delete. There may be some slight material that can be smerged to the various film articles (contact me for a copy of the deleted article) and the deletion is without prejudice (in view of the fast moving nature of the film industry, in which Tom Putnam may well do something highly significant, or be biographically profiled in future) to a future recreation if there is a significant increase in notability and in independent sources. ++Lar: t/c 19:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom_Putnam[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Tom_Putnam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This page has had recurring unverifiable unreferenced negative and libelous information added about the subject who is a living person - for example see entry 21:05 on 16 July 2007 from IP address 216.101.81.4 Shibano100 (talk)

P.S. Those who believe that directing a poorly received film is a notability criterion can look at the IMDb’s bottom 100.
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:HEY (non-admin closure. The only delete preferences expressed were PERNOM and "no citations". The subject has multiple mentions in independent reliable sources and enough of a claim for notability to make the keep preferences expressed here credible. Skomorokh 00:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Solomon[edit]

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

Chief constable of a seaside town in England not really notable enough for an encyclopedia. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 19:54, 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, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline at this time. Davewild (talk) 21:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grind Mode[edit]

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

Non-notable hip hop group, fails WP:MUSIC per [3] and [4]. The latter was the only possibly relevant/reliable source that identifies the subject. There simply isn't enough coverage yet to meet notability guidelines. [5] is google news hits. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:52, 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. I find the arguments that all tertiary colleges are notable persuasive; the suggestion to merge to University of Pune does not seem feasible, as the institution appears administratively separate. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

College of Pharmacy (Pune)[edit]

College of Pharmacy (Pune) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete This obscure college in rural India only started a year ago and not produced any notable academic or pharmaceutical achievements. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - this is because the degrees it awards are University of Pune degrees and not degrees in its own name. This is a similar arrangement to that which exists at many tertiary colleges in the UK; for example Edge Hill University for a number of years awarded University of Liverpool degrees. TerriersFan (talk) 21:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply The college itself is not in the city of Pune, but (according to the article} in the "outskirts." Ecoleetage (talk) 23:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to reply Romford is in the outskirts of Greater London but I am not sure that the residents would take kindly to being described as living in 'rural Britain'. Narhe, the district of Pune concerned, also contains the Kashibai Navale Medical College and Hospital, the Sinhgad Institute of Management Computer Application, the Sinhgad Institute of Pharmacy, the Dnyanganga College of Engineering and Research etc. TerriersFan (talk) 00:27, 29 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.--Kubigula (talk) 03:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leigh Alexander[edit]

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

article fails WP:bio, needs more References Oo7565 (talk) 19:45, 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. Wizardman 20:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CoSort[edit]

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

Speedy deleted 3x as failing to assert notability, deleted by prod once for failure to meet the threshold of WP:CORP. Latest recreation still does not make notability clear, and is very spammy. Pastordavid (talk) 19:44, 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 no consensus. I am concerned here about the "unsourced" argument, which brings up a verifiability problem. What saves this is Neier's source which does appear to ease some of these concerns, (with the caveat that I cannot read it as it's in Japanese). Further work may be needed on this article, or it may be renominated at some point in the future. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strawberry Flower[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a "band" made up of three or more videogame characters; fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V. If there's anything of substance here, it should be merged into Pikmin. Orange Mike | Talk 19:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Though if someone else could pull citations from Oricon, that'd be good. I fail at naviagiting that site. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:12, 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.--Kubigula (talk) 03:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heat and Plumb[edit]

Heat and Plumb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Company formed in 2004, has 30 employees and 200 users of its online forum over the past three months. All links are to the company or a press release. Adminstrator DGG declined my speedy, in case you ask why I didn't try that. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 19:40, 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. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remote Area Medical[edit]

Remote Area Medical (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable organization; had its 15 minutes of fame when CBS covered it once. Orange Mike | Talk 19:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - OrangeMike nominated this article for Speedy Delete once before and consensus was to keep it. Once an article has been nominated for deletion and the consensus is NO, shouldn't that be the end of the story? Does OrangeMike have something against the subject matter here? --AStanhope (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • reply - When an editor believes an article is about non-notable subject matter, the procedure is as follows: if they believe it is clearly non-notable, then a "speedy" nomination is made. If other editors (other than the article's author) disagree, they will remove the "speedy tag" and explain why. If an editor (the same or another) is still unconvinced, they may "prod" the article, explaining their reasoning; but ANY editor can remove the "prod" tag (even the author of the article) within a few days. If a prod tag is removed, then any editor unconvinced of the suitability of the article may make an Article for Deletion nomination, where all parties may discuss the question. I was, and remain, unconvinced that this group is any more notable than many tens of thousands of small charities across the planet who never happened to get on a TV show. The promotional/hagiographic tone of the article has also led me to suspect a possible conflict of interest here; but I have no evidence, and have never mentioned it until my own motivations were questioned, preferring to assume good faith instead. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - I assume that you are talking about me with regards to a conflict of interest. No - no conflict of interest here. I saw the 60 Minutes piece on the organization and was fascinated in the organization. I wanted to find out more and, as is usually my habit, the Wikipedia was the first place I looked for additional info. I was disappointed to find that there was information whatsoever about the organization on the Wikipedia. For that reason, I started the article we find on the Wikipedia about the subject today. It's just a stub - a stake in the ground - but many/most articles here start that way. Over time people will add to it and expand it. Follow the link to watch the 60 Minutes episode on the organization. I think you'll agree that the organization is both fascinating and quite special. --AStanhope (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - Orangemike, I understand your suspicions of conflict of interest (though that’s not the case with me, either), but what have you got against this article? You already nominated it for a speedy deletion and some of us felt it was worth keeping, so why keep trying? Are you trying to save bandwidth or something? I hope that doesn’t come across as being smart because I’m genuinely curious. --Flash176 (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
? I thought I was clear above. I still don't think it's notable; simple as that. One of my duties as an admin is to keep an article out for non-notable subjects. It's not my idea of fun; fun involves watching my little girl dance at a feis, or cuddling with my sweetie. It's just that there are lots of organizations more deserving of articles, and this one is not up to our standards as I understand them (fallible human that I am). --Orange Mike | Talk 21:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Roger that. Thanks for clarifying. --Flash176 (talk) 21:43, 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. We are not deleting the word, merely the Wikipedia article, which does not demonstrate the notability (or even use) of the word.--Kubigula (talk) 03:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Garbism[edit]

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

Transwiki candidate, dictionary definition only with no encyclopedic information. Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 19:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I also think [Wiktionary] wouldn't want it, but I'm not too familiar with those criteria, so I could easily be wrong. AnturiaethwrTalk 20:28, 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 - per WP:SNOW. While there are two people who disagree the majority of their edits are just this page. Byond being quite obviously not notable. Its also possibly a conflict of interest. Myspace or some other social networking site would be better to promote their team. -Djsasso (talk) 19:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mighty Psyducks[edit]

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

The team claims to be professional but gets four Google hits, and seems to have existed for only a year. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Psyducks are not professional. Being a fan of the Psyducks I would be the first to tell you that the Psyducks are relevant and deserve to have a home on Wikipedia. Sure they are not notable everywhere, but in the Buffalo area, they are known too many. Maybe I'm wrong but I thought that it was not required that something be globally known. The Mighty Psyducks are very much like a small british soccer club and I know many of them have wikipedia articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forskid (talk • contribs) 19:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually amateur British soccer clubs mostly don't have articles. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please include in this deletetion request Patrick Thompson (hockey) who is notable only for playing in this team. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I love Wikipedia and am the first one to defend it, saying how closely monitored it is and that you can trust it for that reason exactly. I would not tell you that this article should be on Wikipedia if I didn't believe it with my whole heart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forskid (talk • contribs) 19:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-Gary, this is a team, not a single athlete— Preceding unsigned comment added by Forskid (talk • contribs) 20:17, 24 April 2008

"salary contract to binding players" Really? Their players have salaries? DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, really there is a salary for all players of the GISHL and a $10.00 dollar/per game salary was made the minimum wage as of June 27th, 2007 by the Grand Island Street Hockey League Players Association. Most funding for players is provided by various sponsors of teams and Team owners. The largest team sponsor is 84 Lumber, the official sponsor of The Mighty Psyducks. --MPaasch (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— MPaasch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - note that MPaasch has now created an article about himself, Mike Paasch. I've db-speedied. Corvus cornixtalk 22:36, 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. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Racial identity disorder[edit]

Racial identity disorder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I cannot locate any psychological/psychiatric source for this disorder; instead, all the Ghits I could locate point to this being a slang term, rather than an actual diagnosable disorder. I am nominating for deletion per WP:RS and WP:OR. nneonneo talk 19:08, 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. Quasirandom's argument carries the day.--Kubigula (talk) 03:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crooked Zebra[edit]

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

Non-notable self-published book with 88 google hits. Damiens.rf 19:06, 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 WP:CSD#G7 by SkierRMH. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fearless (Collin Raye album)[edit]

Fearless (Collin Raye album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Tagged for notabiilty. Yes, Collin Raye is notable, but this album doesn't appear to be notable - no chart singles, red linked label, no reviews, etc. (Yes, I do like Collin Raye a great deal, but he needs to stop putting out so many *(@#$ non-notable albums.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do concede that it fails WP:N in terms of garnering critical reviews. Amazon has four reviews. Mainly I just don't see the harm in uniformly filling out the entire discography of a notable musician. That's might be against some policy. Potatoswatter (talk) 03:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it's not. Albums only warrant separate pages when there's enough to say about them. This was just an indie album that went by without leaving even a blip on the radar. Also, Amazon reviews don't count. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:58, 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 Withdrawn with consensus to keep. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 11:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Love Songs (Collin Raye album)[edit]

Love Songs (Collin Raye album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't seem to be a notable compilation album; no third party reviews, no new songs, etc. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn. I'm sure there might be a reference somewhere. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 11:58, 29 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. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merrr[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not dictionary. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete? Which criteria? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I used "no content", prolly should've done "nonsense". Seriously, it just rambles without saying anything. Also there's no way a prod would be contested. Potatoswatter (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not nonsense. So "nonsense" is not applied here. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 01:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It differs from a speech disfluency such as "argh" or "blah" in that merrr is a word used deliberately to represent other words, rather than as an accidental or temporary interjection into speech.

Author is coining new words in order to talk about nonsense. In any case, it's probably not a bad idea to just bring the article to the attention of an admin, some way or another, and avoid wasting several people's time in AfD. Potatoswatter (talk) 01:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CIVIL, also after checking your contribution, you have not enough positive contribution, no DYK, no article etc. So don't teach other about "time waste". Try to build some good articles. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 01:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying that I'm not a positive contributor, and that this debate is not a waste of time -- you weren't/aren't sure whether the article would actually be saved in the end. I wasn't copping an attitude before. Going straight to AfD is a bad habit, especially for freshly created articles. If you're patrolling new pages, you should ONLY use prod & csd EVER. Anyway, now I'll cop an attitude and say you're discouraging good newbies and wasting time of other editors if you consistently use AfD instead of PROD. Potatoswatter (talk) 03:07, 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. As Protonk notes there is the possibility of an article along these lines (perhaps following the pattern of other articles mentioned below), however right now there is a clear consensus to delete this version as an unnecessary (and largely duplicative) content fork of Allied war crimes during World War II.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USA war crimes[edit]

USA war crimes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination for User:JukoFF, who gave the cryptic explanation "Moved from quick removing." in a malformed AfD. As for me, I give an unbiased Delete as a case of synthesis and original research. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:24, 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 Withdrawn with consensus to keep. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Counting Sheep[edit]

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

Yes, it's a major label album by a very notable artist (and a very good artist at that). However, it seems to fail the acid test of reliable sources -- the album didn't produce any chart singles, and doesn't appear to have been reviewed in any third party sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn, Klausness found a good source. I also forgot this album charted on the Top Kid Albums chart, so it's prolly notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:49, 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 transwiki or merge proposals can be discussed by interested editors on the article talk page. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Average frustrated chump[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Average frustrated chump (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)


Delete: Primarily a definition of a neologism: cannot be made encyclopedic, belongs in a dictionary at best. Entry cannot be made NPOV because usage of the word is confined to pickup guides and supporters of the "pickup community". What little non-definitional information is included in the article is not verifiable for the same reason. Entry may not be notable enough for inclusion in wikipedia -- it is specialized jargon which is not used in conventional speech.Auspex1729 (talk) 17:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete following the above rationale, or redirect to seduction community.-Wafulz (talk) 23:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • We're not arguing about existence. We're saying it's an esoteric neologism almost entirely backed up by primary sources.-Wafulz (talk) 23:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki. Article as it stands is just the phrase and examples of its usage. Google News refs listed above are not about the word, but mention it as examples of neologic language used by certain groups. 14days (talk) 21:18, 1 May 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. Wizardman 18:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aab Cardiovascular Research Institute[edit]

Aab Cardiovascular Research Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This Research institute appears non notable. Oo7565 (talk) 17:52, 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 already redirected. Wizardman 18:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Munising, Michigan Police Department[edit]

Munising, Michigan Police Department (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:RS and WP:N. A local police department made up of five people. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:52, 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 per WP:MUSIC. Black Kite 00:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC) (Note: The page was also re-created as a disambig per my suggestion. This is a cautionary note so that an admin doesn't accidentally delete the disambig. I've had this kind of thing happen before.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Time[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be a notable song -- didn't chart, no sources, etc. etc. Recommend deleting and then turning into a dab page, so as to disambiguate among Good Time Records, the Alan Jackson album, and its title track. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:43, 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 withdrawn by nominator on my talk page. Why that was done on my talk page, and not here, I don't know. The article does need some clean-up. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 09:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Audicom[edit]

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

Audicom is a software product advertisement masquerading as an encyclopedic article and violates WP:NOTABILITY and WP:SPAM. Same WP:V and WP:PRODUCT issues to delete are found here as in Audicom (PC audio cards). What troubles me the most is the blatant spam on so many audio pages. This is just one diff example of the many I continue to find. Users on this discussion have called me "an edit warrior" "feuding editor", yet, they completely ignore the scope of these individuals' self promotion activities at Wikipedia. One quick look at OscarJuan and Sebastian Ledesma's contributions confirms it. To make things more difficult to understand, there is clear evidence of sock and meat puppet activity. Jrod2 (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make an article about the company (wich is near 40 years old in the broadcast market) because I considered that it can be considerd self promoting. But what the company did, it's a merit: a working compression system.
How many companies in the world create a compression system?
It's an offence that an small company from Argentina did it?.
I didn't make an article about other products (like digital audio processors, or digital consoles) that the company currently sells. So, it's not spam. The company name it's Solidyne. The system name was Audicom. That's clarifies the doubts for the user JRod2.

And by last, but not least, it's AUDICOM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SLedesma (talk • contribs) 18:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Sebastian Ledesma, we don't need to use only Google or Wayback to verify claims. We need PROOF by using the proper citations and references which your article has none. The fact that nothing is found on reputable and notable audio and science online magazines, except the same text borrowed from Wikipedia on blog sites, indicates a serious WP:V problem, but I also see violations of WP:SPAM by you, as some editors pointed out on the AfD at Audicom (PC audio cards) which is nothing but your company's product. Jrod2 (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: JeremyMcCracken, if you analyze my reverts, they are all related to Audicom or the www.Solidyne.com spam link or all the unverified claims by OscarJuan (confirmed sock puppeteer [12]) a/k/a Oscar Bonello d/b/a Solidyne.com and his meat puppet Sebastian Ledesma. Are you accusing me of bad faith edits against these individuals? If so, please do your homework. If my work to clean up spam and vandalism is not suitable to you, report me to WP:CVU at once. 00:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I was only giving the histories for an overview; I was really looking at edits like this:[13]. Unless I'm seeing something wrong, it appears that you were editing on this article before tagging it, and I count eight <ref>...</ref> pairs in the section you deleted. Additionally, you called it vandalism reversion in the edit summary (as opposed to problems with WP:RS, WP:OR, etc.) BTW, by "feud", I meant both ways. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 01:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Again JeremyMcCracken , Do your homework. The diff you are showing here is the rollback vandal by Twinkle, which is what TW does and you wouldn't know because you don't use it to do tedious tasks faster. I didn't "add" anything to the article, which means your assumption of some "feud" between me and the author is wrong. On the other hand, you appear to be forgetting WP:AGF and your recent delete of a justified and legitimate comment by me on your talk page, also reaffirms that point (see: diff Summary"(rm attack, don't contact me further)". Wikipedia is not a place to write your wrong conclusions. Jrod2 (talk) 02:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OUTDENT I took it off of my talk page because the discussion is here. As WP:TWINKLE states, you take responsibility for what you click- if you labeled a non-vandal edit as vandalism, that's your doing, regardless of twinkle. A feud doesn't require you to add anything- it's a revert war. You still didn't address the removal of information that was full of citations- that's why I called it a feud, because I saw the reverts of cited material. Also, the edit summaries (example) that constantly referred to the other user as a confirmed sockpuppeteer and used of his real name made it sound like you two have a history. (Yes, I saw his sock, I'm not saying he's in the right.) There's no need to clog this AfD up by debating my links, so I'm not going to make any responses. I posted that for the information of others coming upon this AfD. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Show me those citations now and I will support Keep'. Oh, you can't verify them, right? Perhaps, you want to use that external link to "El Diario La Nacion" as WP:RS?. We all speak Spanish here, but we can't use this at WP, can we? You've already disrupted and clogged both AfDs with unnecessary comments. Next time, Please do your homework. Jrod2 (talk) 03:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The refs are books- they don't fail WP:V automatically because they're not online. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 05:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I translated the weblink from that last diff, which wasn't in this article but a different one, it is here: Google;Yahoo Based upon what it says, upgrade from weak keep to keep. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 05:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I didn't know the The AES Journal is a book. Anyway, regarding your first point, the reference fails because the text that was written supposedly at the Audio Engineering Society, is presumed to exist and their claims, edits and contributions are based on its presumed existence. Furthermore, according to WP:V "Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included.". Your second point, El Diario La Nacion, I doubt you can consider it a high-quality reliable source as it had also published similar material in Spanish without references or any verification. It's so easy in those third world countries to pay an editor to publish whatever you want. I certainly wouldn't trust the content and for sure, it's not a good enough reliable source for WP, either. What I've found out after investigating these non-verified edits this last week or so, it's that User:SLedesma and User:OscarJuan have been acting in concert to post information about themselves and their company www.Solidyne.com. Indeed one started doing this as early as November 2006. Their unverified research claims, company name and company products promotion, has been so extensive that the same claims and self promotion were found on at least 8 different audio pages. How they managed to elude detection is beyond me. But, nobody verified the information. This isn't just about deleting this article or the other one you are also opposing to delete. This is about stopping people that whether consciously or unconsciously, whether by lack of culture or ethics, have acted inappropriately and in effect, it all indicates that they came to WP to post information regardless of the lack of verifiable documentation and for their personal gain. Jrod2 (talk) 08:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems to me that this AES Journal reference is from an advertising that appeared in this publication (there are mainly articles, but also some adverts within the AES Journal)--Gabriel Bouvigne (talk) 11:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, check the diffs I didn't go to edit revert war, I had been doing some reverts yes. But no warring. You doing pretty good for an 8 day account, though. Jrod2 (talk) 08:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That hurts me, right here. I hope you won't tell me to do my homework next. My account is 8 days old, but does that give you the impression I was born yesterday? I see huge blocks of pretty reasonable text blanked or reverted by you in those diffs. Now I can assume good faith--and I do--but it is still reasonable to say that you probably didn't want to deal w/ changing the text and just reverted it. The text was replaced and you reverted it (or similar text like it). Call it whatever you want, but that looks like an edit war. Protonk (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, do your homework Protonk, focus on the issues at hand (Product or not? Verifiable or not?, Notable or not? Promotion or not?) and please stop clogging the discussion with irrelevant comments. I am tired of explaining myself to everyone new who didn't read the whole discussion because it's so long. Even if I did go to "edit war" as you say with these sock and meat puppets, which that's what they are whether you see it or not, the article should be kept at WP only for its own merit and also, careful attention should be paid at how it came about. . Jrod2 (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment Hey Gabriel Bouvigne wasn't it you who asked me to look into OscarJuan's sock puppet IP?. (see: [14]). These are OscarJuan's contributions ([15])
I guess what I read about, "do not create articles, if you are associated with a website, or do not create articles about your friends" is out the window because these are guidelines not policy. You have no problem with an article about their software, but their hardware is not Ok, correct? Then, one should expect to have the other AudiCom, which is "a video analysis system for auditing commercial broadcasts" (see: [16]. This Audicom has better references than the Audicom, audio broadcast software. AUDICOM now reads more like a product, doesn't it? Last time I checked WP:PRODUCT "Information on products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself". Another guideline on Notability says: "Although articles should demonstrate the notability of their topics, and articles on topics that do not meet this criteria are generally deleted, it is important to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be. When discussing whether to delete or merge an article due to non-notability, the discussion should focus not only on whether notability is established in the article, but on what the probability is that notability could be established. If it is likely that independent sources could be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. All too often articles are the subject of bitter deletion debates where anybody on either side of the debate could have fixed the article with far less effort than was spent fighting about it. Deletion should be considered a last resort used for articles that cannot be developed to Wikipedia's standards." (see: [17]). My last point to make is, we shouldn't reward a team of editors whose obvious aim is to promote their company for their own personal gain. If their products were notable and verified by reliable sources, editors who heard about these products would have created this article, not the owner or the company associates. In this case, editors shouldn't vote to keep unless they are willing to work towards fixing this product article. Having a software screenshot and a picture of some generic audio cards published by an Argentinian paper is hardly any proof. Imagine how easy it is to make a hoax; by having Wikipedia publish an article, it really doesn't matter whether it's true or not. Bottom line, if there isn't something written on a publication like "Mix Magazine", let's get rid of it and move on to do things that are worthier. Jrod2 (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These TWO editors deleted the same unverified content I did (See: [20] [21] which was reverted by OscarJuan and which they didn't dispute , I think because they assumed that OscarJuan was a good faith and neutral editor (I don't know this for sure, that's the reason I invited them. See: [22] and [23]). Vote stacking also says "Some Wikipedians have suggested that informing editors on all "sides" of a debate (e.g., everyone who participated in a previous deletion debate on a given subject) may be acceptable.". I believe that asking only 2 editors who are familiar with the case to join in the discussion, should be hardly considered "canvassing". You on the other hand, have confirmed that you don't assume good faith on this discussion and I ask that your vote to be discounted from the final results, as you have some kind of a bias against me for doing crime fighting. Jrod2 (talk) 21:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They weren't on both sides of the debate- they'd both been on your side against the other user, which you said in the messages. I wouldn't have a problem if there were people on both sides, as there hasn't been much participation here. It's not a vote BTW, it's a discussion, but as I said above, AfD is not how you fix an existing content dispute. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to say it for the last time Jeremy and hopefully you can get it. I contacted 2 people I thought could help explain what their views were on the matter. Their opinions could have been different today so there was no way to predict what they would say. You are a ridiculous debater for accusing me of "vote stacking" in order to weakened my position in this discussion and I am tired of all your bad faith comments and insinuations. BTW, I know an AfD is NOT a vote but a discussion, you are the one saying I am "vote stacking". Finally, I don't have a content dispute with these editors, I had been reverting for lack of verifiable citations which is policy. There is no content dispute in matters of verifiability (per WP:V) policy. unverified material is deleted, no questions asked. My AfD has nothing to do with any content disputes with them because I didn't make any contributions to the articles these editors were working on. Not that I won't in the future. You are being a problem in this discussion, disrupting it, clogging it and prompting me to write too much to my defense. The topic IS "should we delete this article" or WP:AfD, not is "Jrod2 guilty of doing something?". Furthermore, I've been in communications with the article's main editor and he has explained his motives and as I assume good faith, I am accepting his explanations so my opinion can be swayed. If I choose to help him with his contributions, that's my decision and none of your business too. Now, go on and do productive edits. Jrod2 (talk) 22:19, 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 A7 by Tiptoety , non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timdougjake[edit]

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

Fails WP:RS, WP:V and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:37, 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. Fram (talk) 08:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mu Tau Rho[edit]

Mu Tau Rho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Strange article about a "sorority for mothers and future mothers". There's a chance that this article could be saved... but it's hard to figure it out at this point. Damiens.rf 17:30, 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. Fram (talk) 08:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International Fukiya Association[edit]

International Fukiya Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The notability for this blowgun association is not established in the article. Damiens.rf 17:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Which, as it happens, a casual search demonstrates cannot be. A threadbare 20 unique Google hits [26], almost all of which are this article and various Wiki mirrors.  RGTraynor  00:14, 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 'Already deleted as expired prod. Fram (talk) 09:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phi Delta Sigma Fraternity, Inc.[edit]

Phi Delta Sigma Fraternity, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article is a press release for a campus fraternity. It's even written in the first person ("...through these qualities our members will become better prepared..."). I'm not convinced this organization is notable enough. Damiens.rf 17:21, 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 keep. The suggested merge location contains merely a list of schools, and this one is already on it. Non admin. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 12:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everest Catholic High School[edit]

Everest Catholic High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable high school that will open in Augus 2008. Article sounds like a press-release. Damiens.rf 17:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: If there are enough parochial schools in the diocese to justify it, it makes perfect sense to me.  RGTraynor  16:41, 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 Keep; one of the rare occasions where WP:MUSIC#C6 is actually logical. Black Kite 00:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sauze[edit]

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

Recently formed band that is yet to release its first album Damiens.rf 17:15, 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. Wizardman 18:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Get Go[edit]

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

Recently created band that is yet to release its first album. Damiens.rf 17:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The band's debut album will be released in about 2 weeks in Japan on the Dynamord Label.PerfectChaos337 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This counts as a Delete, right? --Damiens.rf 05:11, 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 The article does not contain any sources, or indeed, any references at all. So we have to rely on searching, and on taking the claims the article makes at face value (because we assume good faith). So what do we have?

Compare with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Tsai, recently deleted by me... this person is less notable than Mr. Tsai is. For a marginally notable BLP, with few or no sources, and no prospect of further expansion, the default outcome failing consensus (we had 3 commenters) should be delete. Therefore Delete, without prejudice to recreation if a significantly improved source demonstrating clear notability should appear later. --++Lar: t/c 20:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Lynch[edit]

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

Notability. This attorney seems to have a good c.v., but I'm not completely convinced he is notable enough. Also, there's not reliable sources backing up the few notability claims. Damiens.rf 17:04, 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 under G11, blatant advertising (and author was blocked for a username violation). EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ansata[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:04, 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 Redirect. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beadle and tatum[edit]

Beadle and tatum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The individuals already have their own articles so this page is redundant. There is no way to redirect to both articles otherwise I would have done so. ukexpat (talk) 16:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For information on the work of George Wells Beadle and Edward Lawrie Tatum, see articles on:
FreeKresge (talk) 17:27, 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. No real need for AFD in obvious cases like this. Friday (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Achronolate[edit]

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

Zero Ghits. Original research, protologism, no reliable sources. nneonneo talk 16:47, 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.


lame! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.176.65.171 (talk) 09:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure). Consensus forms that this is a legitimate academic field. WilliamH (talk) 14:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Witchcraft and children[edit]

Witchcraft and children (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This synthesis from other sources appears to be original research and fails WP:OR. ukexpat (talk) 16:43, 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.
This page has been blanked as a courtesy.
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. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry Bolton[edit]

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

Article about a living person who has complained about the article in the past. The article is a permastub. The person has received very marginal media coverage - I tried google news archives, and when mentioned, it seems to be as someone within the National Front, rather than him being the subject of the article. Andjam (talk) 16:23, 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 a3, no meaningful, substantive content; WP:CRYSTAL. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spider man 4 film[edit]

Spider man 4 film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completely OR it seems, no citations and sounds like advertising to me. asenine t/c\r 15:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:CRYSTAL, WP:OR and WP:WRITTEN BY AN 8-YEAR-OLD. Potatoswatter (talk) 16:08, 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 Deleted per CSD G11. Nakon 15:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Media-selections.com[edit]

Media-selections.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:WEB. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:16, 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. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikijumping[edit]

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

PROD removed by author without comment. Wikipedia is not for something made up one day, and no references establish notability. JohnCD (talk) 15:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the article is a proof you can learn something or get an idea even on pages doomed to deletion. Unfortunately not very often. --Ruziklan (talk) 10:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I also remembered something similar, and I looked at the logs to see if this had been deleted before, but no - the earlier one must have been under some other name. JohnCD (talk) 18:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the game that was similar to this (and summarily deleted) was Five Clicks to Jesus if i'm not mistaken. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 13:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. WP:NONSENSE is for articles that can't be understood by reading them. This is silly, but it's just something made up one day. Not the same thing. --Dhartung | Talk 23:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree as well. If you read this article, you will know how to play this game, so it's not nonsense. Of course, if you've been on Wikipedia for a while, you probably knew the rules of this game before this article was even written, because we've seen it many times before under other names. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:03, 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 delete. I read Cycloenim's argument, and can only say that if evidence of independent recognition can be provided, then another article might be created which does not have the problems this article has. At present, everything is sourced to itself, and bears resemblance to advertising. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which caravan[edit]

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

Just advertising un-notable magazine.Triwbe (talk) 15:07, 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. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very Hard Choices[edit]

Very Hard Choices (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails the notability requirements for books. Novel isn't even released yet. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:01, 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 the sources make the article as viable as the keepist says, then my all means he can recreate the article. Wizardman 01:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Big Three news anchors[edit]

Big Three news anchors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Surprisingly, this phrase gets just 26 non-wiki ghits and no hits on google news. Certainly, each of the anchors is notable individually, but I'm not finding refs for this particular concept. Prod was contested. Fabrictramp (talk) 14:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure I follow this reasoning for deletion. Could you explain why failing to mention the Cronkite et al era means the article should be deleted? BuddingJournalist 18:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agree with Budding Journalist here. This sounds like a reason to expand the article, not to delete.--Fabrictramp (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no I completely understand. I just wasn't sure what nightly newscasts were we talking about here: the ABC/NBC/CBS news after the local news or newsmagazines like Dateline and 60 Minutes. It didn't go into things and didn't source any of its claims, and besides this information could be covered and expanded in other articles (the ones for the newscasters themselves, the programs, the channels, etc.) Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 13:24, 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 Delete. This would be a straight keep or possibly no consensus if we closed discussion by headcount but since we assess consensus by reference to policy and guidelines this does come down to delete. The argument for deletion concerns whether these subjects are sufficiently notable to be included. None of the articles have any sources and the nominator has taken care to only bundle articles where there does not appear to be a liklihood of extensive sources being provided. Although a number of editors have argued keep by asserting notability no-one has provided any sources and we are therefore left to consider whether this is notability by assertion or a statement that the subjects are inherantly notable. Clearly, for example, an article on the international relations between say Vanuatu and Greenland is a nonsense and this leads me to the conclusion that it would not be right to accept that these articles have inherant notability as there clearly has to be a judgement of degree notability. Given the absence of sources which are used as the traditional measure of notability I am left with the conclusion that the only correct way to close this discussion is delete. I feel that this is still a slightly unsatisfactory outcome so I would be willing to revisit this close should there subsequently be a wider discussion elsewhere that leads to a clearer conclusion on where, in the absence of sources, we should draw the line with marginal "bilateral relations between X & Y" type articles. Spartaz Humbug! 20:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bilateral relations of Ireland[edit]

AfDs for this article:
    Cyprus-Irish relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
    Croatian-Irish relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Bulgarian-Irish relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Georgian-Irish relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Greek-Irish relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Irish-Maltese relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Irish-Montenegrin relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Irish-Paraguayan relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Irish-Ukrainian relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Irish-Romanian relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    This is a series of stub articles on bilateral relations between Ireland and another country. In each case, the article says little more that that diplomatic relations exist, and there is an embassy somewhere. I don't see any significant prospect of these articles being expanded, because in none of these cases does Ireland have any significant trade links with these countries, nor are there significant emigrant populations involved.

    Several of these countries are, like Ireland, members of the European Union, so there will undoubtedly be diplomatic dealing relating to EU business, but those would be best discussed under an EU heading. At the moment Ireland's EU relations are covered only briefly in Foreign relations of the Republic of Ireland#European_Union, which is inadequate because the EU is highly significant for Ireland ... but even if that that coverage is expanded, we are still several steps away from needing separate articles on the bilateral relationships.

    Note that I have not nominated all the Irish bilateral relations articles; there are also articles on Irish-South African relations, Australian-Irish relations, Argentine-Irish relations, Irish-Russian relations, Canada-Ireland relations, Ireland-United States relations and Anglo-Irish relations.

    This is because:

    Note that before making this AFD nomination, I raised the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland#Bilateral_relations_of_Ireland, where there was a suggestion to merge to a list. There is already a list of Diplomatic missions of Ireland, which could indeed be expanded to include dates and details of embassies, but since even the list of Irish embassies and the list of diplomatic missions to Ireland on the Department of Foreign Affairs website doesn't include much detail (embassy contact-listings only in the examples I checked), I don't see it as an important issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    PS I should have stated this explicitly: there is no sign of the substantial covergage in reliable sources which would establish the notability of these topics per WP:N. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:12, 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. Might go to DRV, but I'd argue that although it doesn't technically quite hit WP:MUSIC, I find it difficult to believe that a band with at least four releases on 4AD aren't notable. Black Kite 00:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Scheer (band)[edit]

    Scheer_(band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[((subst:FULLPAGENAME))|View AfD]])

    Not notable. Only redlinks in the article, and no sources. Llamabr (talk) 02:54, 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. Fram (talk) 09:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    White Hat Marketing[edit]

    White Hat Marketing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Delete article about recently-founded SEO company. It gets about 1500 non-Wikipedia hits on an internet search, many of them from link farms and blogs. Seems to fail WP:CORP. Mindmatrix 20:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi... not sure how I'm supposed to partipate here, but hopefully this works. Anyway, I input this entry on White Hat Marketing as an encyclopediac entry on an SEO marketing business. I dont' know anything about the link farms, but the blogs concerned are not personal blogs but rather business ones which operate as websites in themselves regarding the topic they cover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Librarian at Terminus (talk • contribs) 03:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, I'm still not sure what the problem is. It's an encyclopediac entry about the company. How is it any different from any other entry about a company? It tells what the company does. I just don't see how this is spam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Librarian at Terminus (talk • contribs) 01:07, 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 Delete. Fram (talk) 09:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    X Plus-Minus[edit]

    X Plus-Minus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    The article is about a method to predict movements in financial markets. I think the topic is not verifiable because there are no sources on it except for the website of the company that has developed the method. It is a very new method; only a few weeks of data is available on the website. The method is not described on the website and I can't find any previous analysis. The article was speedily deleted under the "blatant advertising" clause (and re-created) but I don't think it qualifies as that. Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:08, 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. I've been following this with interest and I endorse Dweller's praise for the constructive development of the debate. Ty 23:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ľudovít Lehen[edit]

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

    Disputed prod. I can't tell if this chap is indeed notable. No comprehensible evidence currently - the external links are not in English. Would appreciate some help with this one. Dweller (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. I'm assuming he sets chess problems, which is a notable activity. I've posted to the Chess WikiProject, as well as those relating to Slovakia and Visual arts. I suspect he has below-par notability claims on all fronts, but clarity would be nice. --Dweller (talk) 14:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It seems to be directly translated from this at the German wiki. He gets about 522 ghits. Maybe someone fluent in German can translate the page and we can evaluate this better. freshacconcispeaktome 14:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that. Is the article correct that he has a permanent exhibition at the Slovak National Gallery? Their website search doesn't find his name, nor does Google I'd tend to agree with Freshacconci that if it is true, that'd convey sufficient notability as an artist alone, bearing in mind Pawnkingthree's reasonable assertions (below) re chess. --Dweller (talk) 14:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not any that I would know about, unfortunately for article. That is why I have based my Keep on his chess notability. Indeed I disagree with Pawnkingthree's view, let me elaborate below, in comment under his vote. --Ruziklan (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Is there a delsort for AfDs in chess? I don't know anything about chess, so I'm out of my depth here. Maybe other chess experts could weigh in. As an artist, he seems notable, pending a better translation and clear references. freshacconcispeaktome 14:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if not, I have posted to the Chess WikiProject, which presumably is what brought Pawnkingthree here. See my reply to Ruziklan above re his position as an artist. --Dweller (talk) 14:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment In the Handbook of chess composition kindly linked by you there are given all international title holders. Titles in chess composition are more rare than in the over-the-board chess. For getting FIDE Master title one have to gain at least 12 album points, i.e. to have at least 12 problems or 8 studies published in the FIDE Album. On pages 56-64 there are listed all composers having at least one composition in FIDE Album in whole history, and it is easy to see how few people are in double digits. Needless to say, most composers have never had any composition there. Ľudo has won many tournaments in magazines around globe and was repeatedly a member of team of Slovak national team in World Chess Composition Tournament, also winning silver medal in the 5th WCCT. Of course, any holder of GM or IM is more notable than FM, but that is longtime high level achievement anyway. --Ruziklan (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that. I was unsure how stringent the criteria were for FM level, that's all. If he's had tournament successes and had his work published in significant magazines then he would meet WP:N I guess.Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Actually, I would not say having one's work published in significant magazines is of sufficient notability as even the most prestigious magazines (English The Problemist, French Phénix, Dutch Probleembad, German Die Schwalbe, Russian The Ural Problemist, American StrateGems,, ...) publish works of virtually anyone. Many composers publish regularly almost everywhere, nevertheless they got zero Album points as FIDE Album is about quality. And quantity of quality (i.e. enough works placed in FIDE Album) is needed to get official international title. Technically, you just have to make 12 excellent problems for FIDE master. But in reality it takes years of high level composing. --Ruziklan (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I agree there are some chess composers without title that are still notable, especially in the oldest ones. My point was about the opposite: having the FM title is not enough to confer notability. Of course it is subjective, the notability should be judged on a case-by-case basis.
    And I also agree chess composition has brought a lot of knowledge to endgames, but I still think chess composition is less notable than chess "over-the-board", as can be proved by the number and importance of references/books/mentions/etc. SyG (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The one thing you do wrong is to take absolute numbers instead of percentage. :-) --Constructor 00:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think, that we can use criterias from WP:ATHLETE here, too: Notable are "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)." Which is exactly what he did (FIDE Albums + member of the Slovak National Team).--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment As far as I understand, FIDE Albums are a "primary source" while WP:ATHLETE still requires some secondary sources, otherwise any obscure sport would become notable as soon as there is a federation. Are there some secondary sources for this person ? SyG (talk) 06:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As much as I did not want to step in again as this could be understood as defending my personal friend, I think I can explain this. Primary sources in chess composition are books, journals, newspapers and websites where the compositions are originally published. FIDE Albums on the other hand are present selection of the best compositions published during three-years periods, selected in respective sections by panels of 3 expert judges + section directors. Problems published in primary sources are usually participating in primary competitions, for prizes, honourable mentions, commendations, places or whatever any (even obscure) organizer and/or judge deems suitable. But FIDE Album is something completely different, it is high-level secondary competition, where only best compositions can take points. To be sure, FIDE Albums get wide coverage in chess composition press and best results also coverage in columns in ordinary newspapers. Other official competitions are World Chess Composition Tournament (WCCT, competition between states, primary) and World Championship in Composing for Individuals (WCCI, secondary, i.e. for already published problems).
    On more general note - is it acceptable according to all usual rules if I answer and explain more than I did up to now? --Ruziklan (talk) 08:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the explanations. So I understand that the mentioned chess problems had previously been published elsewhere, so that the FIDE albums are secondary sources indeed. About your general note, I don't think there is ever a problem in Wikipedia with giving more explanations. SyG (talk) 12:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep - I'd echo these thoughts; borderline notability in at least two disciplines probably tips the balance in his favour. Brittle heaven (talk) 16:12, 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 per near-unanimity among respondents (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 00:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    James Max[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    James Max (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Article pertains to a contestant from the first series of The Apprentice (UK). The relevant information in this article is already included at List of The Apprentice candidates (UK), and this individual has insufficient notability to warrant their own article. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:43, 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 Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Richard Linn American Inn of Court[edit]

    Richard Linn American Inn of Court (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    I'm not sure this organization is notable enough. It's a group o judges and attorneys that meet once a month (since January 2007) to discuss things. Am I missing something? Damiens.rf 12:07, 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 of respondents (non-admin closure). AfD is not cleanup, the content is not a copyvio, and the topic is notable as demonstrated by the arguments here. Skomorokh 00:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Convergence (telecommunications)[edit]

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

    Procedural; was tagged for prod but I don't think this obviously should be deleted. I'm putting it on AfD to solicit comments from anyone that might be more knowledgeable. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 12:05, 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.

    References[edit]

    1. ^ MSc Technologies for Broadband Communications — Department of Electronic and Electrical Engineering
    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. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jonathan Pryor[edit]

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

    Non-notable aspiring local politician in Chorley, in N-W England, whose only claim to notability is a claim that he is the youngest candidate in this year's local elections. There is only one reference to him, of 37 words in his local newspaper, so he fails WP:BIO's main notability test of substantial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject.

    WP:BIO#Politicians provides that candidates are not normally notable, and nor are local councillors, so he wouldn't be notable even if elected (unless his election generates a lot of in-depth coverage, which is unlikely for a local councillor).

    He may merit a footnote in Chorley Council election, 2008, but I suggest that even a merge or redirect to that article would be excessive for this degree of non-notability.

    Note that while the article asserts that Pryor is "the is the youngest candidate standing in a district council election in 2008", the local paper doesn't even say that he is the youngest candidate in Chorley, merely that "is hoping to become the local authority's youngest councillor". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    And http://www.birminghampost.net/news/politics-news/2008/04/07/birmingham-city-council-election-candidates-revealed-65233-20731028/ has a local election candidate aged 18 in Birmingham, exact b'day unstated. Is there any evidence that Pryor is younger? PamD (talk) 12:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment In the linked article the person "hoping to become the local authority's youngest councillor" is in fact someone else entirely. Pryor is not even mentioned..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply. Ooops! You're right. It seems that he gets no coverage at all, not even the 37 words. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That was 2007, as were most of the Google hits for "youngest candidate council election uk"! PamD (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoops, my mistake, have struck out that part of my comment but still stick by supporting deletion. Davewild (talk) 17:55, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Landon Austin[edit]

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

    Non-notable musician. Fails WP:MUSIC. Having a YouTube account and being a finalist in a relatively minor music competition doesn't make one notable. -- Ichabod (talk) 11:56, 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 keep. There was a very clear consensus that this page should be kept. It is also, incidentally, particularly well sourced. (Non-admin closure.) BlueValour (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of eruvin[edit]

    Violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Delete. Bstone (talk) 11:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Which aspect of NOTDIRECTORY are you saying this falls foul of? --Dweller (talk) 12:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    3 and 5. Also WP:NOT#FAQ 4. Bstone (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it's plainly not for business purposes, nor is it a cross-categorisation. And NOT#FAQ seems entirely irrelevant to this list. In terms of NOTDIRECTORY, each of the constituent parts forms a coherent part of a notable topic, and the list is extensively referenced from RS, demonstrating notability comprehensively. I therefore can't help but disagree with the nomination and will have to opt for keep (below). --Dweller (talk) 13:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding your RS argument, I quote from WP:NOT, "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Bstone (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's as may be, but you've not presented a valid argument for deletion. --Dweller (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an indiscriminate listing of information which has no encyclopedic value. If I am wrong please tell me why it has encyclopedic value and why it is notable. Bstone (talk) 14:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What's indiscriminate about it? --Dweller (talk) 14:27, 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. Fram (talk) 09:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Anthony Straker[edit]

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

    Player fails notabiltiy at WP:Bio#Athletes as has not played in a fully-pro league yet. Although his current team are promoted for next season, keeping said article would be crystal balling Jimbo[online] 11:49, 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 redirect to ATL. Present article is just a translation of a word (which is Wiktionary material.) Redirect is useful since many people don't use the shift-key on the internet. (OK, that was really my opinion, but since it's not at odds with any of the opinions in the discussion, I'll close this instead of just "voting".) Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Atl[edit]

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

    "Atl" is just the Aztec word for "water". It isn't the name of a god. Ptcamn (talk) 10:46, 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 a7, doesn't assert notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Alexdavid[edit]

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

    Does not show Wikipedia:Notability. Triwbe (talk) 09:59, 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. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The McKinnon Worker[edit]

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

    I tagged this for a speedy as nonsense and then saw that a speedy had already been declined. There may actually be a college newsletter with this title, but there is no evidence of notability, and the facetious tone of the article means it should be deleted as nonsense. JohnCD (talk) 09:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    DO NOT DELETE THIS, IT IS OBVIOUSLY FINE, JUST BECAUSE YOU DONT "THINK" IT IS VALID WHY DELETE IT? YOUR JUST BEING SELFISH ARROGANT PRICKS! MANY PEOPLE WANT TO SEE THIS TO SEEK INFORMATION ABOUT OUR 'NEWSLETTER. WHY NOT JUST LET IT GO? WHOS IT GOING TO HURT? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.33.192 (talk) 09:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    comment I've already addressed the above issue of why deletion on the author's talk page. Please go ahead and make yourself familiar with some of the policies of Wiki before making comments like the above. Thank you. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry bout putting this here but, I'm looking through the CSD stuff and still can't see where this doesn't count as "spam". No where that I've seen so far says they have to be trying to "sell" a product. Please someone help me work this out. My talkpage is more than available to help discuss so I don't make the same mistake again. Thank you. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment For my own amusement, I cleaned up the article, so many of these scathing reviews no longer match the current revision. It's obviously still not notable, so much so, that I don't even feel the need to vote delete, there's no chance this article will survive. -Verdatum (talk) 16:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment The McKinnon newsletter a.k.a - "The McKinnon Worker" is not advertising, nonsense or spam. The McKinnnon Newsletter is a newsletter run by students at Mckinnon Secondary College. I'm sorry you feel as if it is Spam. We have taken the liberty of fixing up the page. I hope you favour our adjustments, 'Wikipedia' is our best source to inform others, so please do not delete our homepage. Sorry for the misunderstanding and that our editors writing is not to be misconstrued as nonsense. Thankyou. JaackSCH (talk) 02:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not your "homepage". Wikipedia is not a web hosting service. You want a homepage, you will need to find somewhere else to go. Wikipedia is not here to help entities make a name for themselves. Wikipedia is for after that has already happened. Wikipedia is also not a search engine. People will not "find you" here unless they already know what they're looking for or hit the random button. Again, not for what you think you're using Wikipedia for. You need to look elsewhere. DarkAudit (talk) 02:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment This is a page to inform our colleges about the newsletter, we are not hoping people will 'stumble' across this page. We are trying to create a student run newsletter and inform our other students. obviously this means nothing to you, you are not involved. but Wikipedia is the most convenient way for the students to inform and run our newsletter, this is why I deem it a ‘homepage’. I do not appreciate why an attempt for students to create their own paper can be harassed with such scrutiny. Let the students inform their fellow students about the newsletter, apologies for any inconvenience. Thankyou. JaackSCH (talk) 02:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. There are guidelines to what an article needs. There are guidelines to what Wikipedia's mission is. What you are trying to do does not meet those guidelines. Wikipedia does not exist to promote products of any kind. If you intend to use Wikipedia as a primary source to let people know the newsletter exists, then the article will surely be deleted. That is not what Wikipedia is here to do. I AM involved because I am an editor on the English Wikipedia. The task at hand is to vet articles against the guidelines set forth for notability, reliable sources, and spam, amongst many others. It is clear that the article, especially given your statements here, do not acceptably pass those guidelines. DarkAudit (talk) 03:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I can appreciate JaackSCH's civil tone (in stark contrast with the adolescent rantings earlier), but DarkAudit is 110% correct. See: what Wikipedia is not.--Sallicio 03:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Concur. No one here is preventing you or your cronies from creating a newsletter. No one here is preventing you from informing your fellow students about it. You just cannot do so on Wikipedia. Like other editors, I urge you to review the various links provided (as well as WP:FIVE, a good place to start) so you can gain an understanding of Wikipedia policy, procedures and guidelines.  RGTraynor  14:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: How long does it take for an administrator to delete this?--Sallicio 01:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    AfDs typically run five days.  RGTraynor  05:01, 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 per nom, and per article's creator's request (the last !voter here). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The Last Drug[edit]

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

    Appears to be a student/unrecognised independent film, and WP:CRYSTAL applies as the notability of it and that it may (uncited from third party RS) be the first CC licenced film is unknown. SGGH speak! 09:10, 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. Wizardman 18:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Eleftherios Papadopoulos[edit]

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

    Notability not shown. Main source appears to be WP:SPS. Triwbe (talk) 09:06, 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. --PeaceNT (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Shankers Cup[edit]

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

    Contested PROD. Original reason was "Not a notable competition, Wikipedia is not for things made up one day." A google search for "Shankers Cup" gets four hits, including two at WP. The website http://www.shankers.com/dev appears to describe an informal golf tournament organised by friends. PROD was removed on the basis that "the annual compitition exists, as is apparent by the content of the page", however, no third party sources are given. Delete as non-notable competition. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 09:04, 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. Fram (talk) 09:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    U.S. Youth Corps[edit]

    U.S. Youth Corps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Procedural nom. This was PRODed but I'm really unsure about it. Reason for PROD was, "Non-notable youth organization with no coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." I almost endorsed the PROD since it is a WP:COI [30] but I'm not convinced this would be entirely uncontroversial. As this is a procedural nom, I am neutral at this time, but may change depending on the outcome of this discussion. Redfarmer (talk) 08:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah. I didn't actually read the article in depth; with similar ideals and functions (at least sort of), I just assumed it had been some kind of long-running thing. Apparently, it went under a different name until 2007; prior to that, it was "Stargate International"(!?!), and there's nothing on that either. Celarnor Talk to me 09:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that's what I figured it was; the news sources made sense to me considering the name and lead of the article, so that's why I said keep.
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 09:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nicky Holland[edit]

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

    Contested prod (removed by IP without explanation). Football player that fails WP:BIO#Athletes as he has never played in a fully professional league (the Welsh Premier League has an average attendance of 276 and only two full time clubs) and consensus is that youth caps (U-17) do not confer notability. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Are there any examples of Welsh football teams (and players) that are both amateur and are regarded as being at the height of their amateur sport? Ha! (talk) 22:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It depends on the interpretation of that clause. Some people at AfD claim that it is not relevant, as football is a professional sport and the clause only applies to sports which are solely amateur. Some claim that the "highest level of amateur sports" refers to the highest level in the world, which I guess would be the Olympic Games. Others claim that it refers to the highest level of amateur competition within a given country. In Wales the highest level of football at which all players are completely amateur would most likely be some county-level league where the average number of spectators at a game is about 10, and I think you'd struggle to argue for the inclusion of players from that sort of league on WP....... ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yea, that clause is open to a few interpretations. I come across a few of these footballers when checking new pages and I'm never quite sure what to do with them. I suppose really this is the wrong place to find out though, I'll dig around elsewhere.Ha! (talk) 12:47, 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. I think User:Nabla nailed this - the entire notability per WP:BIO here hangs on one obscure documentary program; yet even though the subject appeared in the program, he was not the reason for it; the documentary was about steroid abuse, with him being the exemplar for the problems that can happen. Black Kite 18:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Gregg Valentino[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Gregg Valentino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Unencyclopedic, advert, referenced with primary sources, a MySpace page, and body building websites, no independent third party coverage. Notability may only be derived from self-aggrandizing claims, and steroids arrest (which was mainly referenced by the Daily Show, National Enquirer, and Howard Stern, to name a few). Fails WP:Athlete and WP:Bio. MrPrada (talk) 01:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • comment - above editor is also the nominator - Nabla (talk) 00:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You got the "equation" wrong. It is: Subject of documentary = presumed notable per secondary source coverage. This looks like precisely one of the cases where the person is not notable (WP-wise). I recall a documentaries featuring, say, a young boy that was a cow shepperd here in Portugal; another featuring a camel breeder in some northern Africa nation; even a few featuring a specific jaguar. Is that boy, that man, that jaguar, WP-notable? Definetely no. The real subject of the documentary was poor portuguese boys in that area in general; camel breeders in general, jaguars in general. The documentary featured a specific case, so that it becomes more appealing to the viewer, opposite of a "cold" academic work, it show busines, TV marketing. Does not immediatelly give notability for the actual person. - Nabla (talk) 00:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Speedy deleted (Author blanked the page, no other significant editors).

    Bupenda[edit]

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

    This is an autobiographical article about an entirely unremarkable young man who does not appear to have achieved anything of note. He has been to school and to college and he has worked on some school projects and likes a bit of creative writing in his spare time. nancy (talk) 07:42, 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. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blind Beauty[edit]

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

    Promo page about non-existent novel. Henry Merrivale (talk) 05:34, 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. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The Alternative (newspaper)[edit]

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

    Prod tag removed, so here we are. Unreferenced, nn underground student paper with a single issue, no press/sources[31]. Shawisland (talk) 07:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete per nom. Article consists entirely of high school attitude-posturing. Sorry kids, we don't care if you say your school administration tried to shut you down, and your own MySpace is not a reference. Potatoswatter (talk) 07:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete. Totally, utterly non-notable. Even if they may one day be notable in the future (which I doubt), WP:CRYSTAL applies. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Speedy delete, fails to establish notability, also, WP:SOAP issues. MrPrada (talk) 08:09, 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. Fram (talk) 09:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Decrepitude[edit]

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

    Unnotable neoglism? Nonsense? brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Not to mention that the sources do not corroborate the claimed usage. WP:HOAX or joke article at best. --Dhartung | Talk 07:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that you are right. Pierre Vanpunstut is a joke name. Vanpunstut is not a real name. And just in case there is any doubt, I live in Vancouver and I've never heard the term used that way. So let's delete this thing before the decrepitude sets in here. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:51, 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:G7 nancy (talk) 07:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Pook[edit]

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

    Fails WP:RS, WP:N and WP:V. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment AfD tends to take effort on the part of a number of people, so please post articles here only if WP:SPEEDY and WP:PROD fail. This page is going away by SPEEDY (author consented to deletion) but also you should have PROD'ed it before getting here. Potatoswatter (talk) 07:38, 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 Delete. Fram (talk) 09:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Alessandra Rubi Streignard Villarreal[edit]

    Alessandra Rubi Streignard Villarreal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non notable. Apparently no page on Spanish WP. None of the links go to anything specific except IMDb which may be self-written. I have prodded the article but the notice was removed without the article being improved. It was started by an IP address. Kleinzach (talk) 06:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete. Either she has a psycho secret admirer, or she wrote a tell-all autobiography. The first thing mentioned is a suicide attempt?? Potatoswatter (talk) 10:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, I am a huge fan of this girl, and I do not believe her page should be delted,I would like for "Kleinzach" to stop with the personal attacks, she is very popular here in the Southern States especially in the Spanish speaking community. Hello, if the IMDB article were self writen wouldn't it suggest that she were crazy and self absorbed, and if so, why wouldn't she have put a photo of herself. A friend of mine has several photos of her at a charity event in Boston, but I won't post them because he owns them, I will ask if he can post them. I am not trying to be rude, but do you all have nothing better to do, aside from picking apart people who have accomplished more than you. As for the suicide thing, it was mentioned a few times on El Rojo Vivo on Telemundo, I saw it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.16.116.60 (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC) As well, initially it was started by an IP adress, but I then created an account for modifying it more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.16.116.60 (talk) 22:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC) — 75.16.116.60 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

    Reply: I suggest you (1) create a WP account, (2) add references to the article. I have tagged this article in the past with notability concerns - without getting any response. The notability notice states "If you are familiar with the subject matter, please expand or rewrite the article to establish its notability." If you can do that the Afd can be withdrawn. I'd also suggest you rewrite it so it reads like a proper encyclopedic article. --Kleinzach (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    KEEP or Restart I think this article should be kept around! I'm not a huge fan, but I do admire her, I've seen her in the Nun, I too saw the report of her attempted suicide on Telecinco in Madrid. The problem with this girl is probably exposure, she backs out of a lot of her obligations so no one wants to work with her, she's been in a lot of gossip magaz, but I think her most popular was Vogue Spain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spaniard95 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC) — Spaniard95 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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 Bad faith nomination from banned user and has some sources. Clearly a keep and it doesn't require an AFD to decide whether to merge or redirect an article so that can be left to editorial judgement. Spartaz Humbug! 21:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Lifestyle guru[edit]

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

    Unsourced, invented term? Couchbeing (talk) 05:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked the nominator as a sock of banned Sfacets (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:52, 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 (A7 - group for which no notability asserted) by Tiptoety. Non-admin close. Xymmax (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Perfect Garages[edit]

    Fails WP:CORP. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:36, 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. Fram (talk) 09:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bloomhead[edit]

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

    Previously speeded under A7 and has now been created, so off to AfD this article with no claims of notability, covering an organization with no significant secondary-source coverage, goes. Badger Drink (talk) 05:34, 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. A note about the nomination: "Not notable" is fairly vague, and though I won't go as far as the WP:ATA essay which deems such arguments invalid, I will say that it does not contribute much to the discussion and can easily be refuted by someone with something more specific. In this case it doesn't matter much, but in the future it is advisable to delve a bit deeper to make a more detailed argument. In this case the fact that the topic is from an unpublished work (as pointed out by Quasirandom) and is therefore original research and unverifiable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Twixel Lore[edit]

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

    Non-notable. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:17, 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 and recreate as redirect. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    English media[edit]

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

    Unencyclopedic, not article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:14, 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. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hardboiled Magazine[edit]

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

    Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyway even if you find such sources, the page itself may be kept, but other Wikipedians will likely rewrite the text from the ground up. There's too much obvious conflict of interest here, with long tangents that aren't related to the magazine itself, and the selection of facts and the language clearly designed to promote the magazine itself ("An online digital magazine like Hardboiled has more benefits for advertisers that a print magazine simply cannot do") rather than act as an objective, third-party reporting of the facts about the magazine. cab (talk) 10:26, 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 Deleted per WP:CSD#G1 Pedro :  Chat  07:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Christianity (Other veiws)[edit]

    Christianity (Other veiws) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This one is a bit of a puzzle. Not quite speediable, this is nonetheless not a good article, nor is it what I would consider a good candidate for an article. If there was anything relevent here, I'd suggest merging with Christianity, but as it stands, it's borderline nonsense. The creator states that he hopes a certain section will "become a discussion area" - which probably sums it up in a nutshell. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Badger Drink (talk) 04:57, 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. Fram (talk) 09:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Alternative Kids[edit]

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

    Personal essay. Original research. Corvus cornixtalk 04:51, 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. WP:NOT#NEWS, this is clearly a trivial news story that will be forgotten soon. Black Kite 18:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jonesville Church of God sign controversy[edit]

    Jonesville Church of God sign controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This is a news report about a message put on a church sign for one week or so. It did get some media attention. But there is no evidence of lasting importance, or any real controversy. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm, you learn something new every day (especially on Wikipedia). In that case, delete, with possible unrelated rewrite at WikiNews. MrPrada (talk) 08:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree, it is very relevant. You might also want to reread NOT#Original Research. Right now, the article is just a smear on the church, with rampant OR and synthesis and no references in the article. It does not even mention the church's explanation for the sign. MrPrada (talk) 01:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure it will be, if the article is deleted. But imagine historians combing through Wikipedia 500 years from now. What a fascinating window this will provide them. Cryptographic hash (talk) 08:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case it might be better to mention the incident in the Obama campaign article. How is someone going to find this one among the millions of others? Steve Dufour (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that these are important topics. I might add "Racial segregation in American Christianity" if we don't have an article on that already. However, the fact that this article points to those topics is not enough to keep it since WP has a policy against every passing news story being the topic of an article. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. It meets Wikinews' standards for inclusion. On wikipedia, it would be acceptable as a part of an article on the Church, if the church itself were notable. However, it is not. It would be borderline as a subsection of the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 piece, but certainly does not warrant a content fork daughter article. 01:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
    The Obama campaign article already has a section on negative rumors and slurs, so a sentence on this (cited of course) would fit in fine. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't use the phrase "distanced themselves from" to describe the denomination's reactions. They were never close so no need to create distance. They just informed us of their church policies. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see evidence of any "extensive commentary." Everyone seems to agree that the message was stupid, and inappropriate for a church sign. I'm sure Senators Clinton and McCain think so, as does the church headquarters which seem to have ordered it to come down. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:04, 2 May 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, no sources, no notability, no sources available Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Manny Grado[edit]

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

    No references provided or found to support assertions of notability. NeilN talk ♦ contribs 04:39, 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. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dalegarden[edit]

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

    It would appear to have no notability at all whatsoever having a population of slightly more than one thousand Johnzw (talk) 03:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    1. It doesn't have its own statistics, which we can access
    2. Its name is clearly derived from that of the larger community, suggesting a mere division
    3. The scale in distance and population is much less than Oslo. There may be no commerce at all in Dalegarden. We just don't know. Dale is not an urban area, either.
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete all. Fram (talk) 09:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ajilimójili sauce[edit]

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

    Also nominating the following recipe articles:

    Pique verde boricua‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Pique criollo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Mojito isleño (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Picadillo a la puertorriqueña (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Per WP:NOTHOWTO (they are all just recipes). nneonneo talk 03:49, 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 Keep (non-admin closure). Consensus forms that all towns are inherently notable. WilliamH (talk) 09:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

    Dale, Hordaland[edit]

    Dale, Hordaland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    the article itself admits "dale is a small place" it appears utterly unnotable Johnzw (talk) 03:48, 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, unverifiable and original research. Davewild (talk) 07:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Universal Explosion[edit]

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

    Unreferenced and I can find nothing on google about this supposed sound effect. Not sure if it's non-notable or a hoax. Smacks of original research ("The earliest instance of the explosion I've heard") and unverifiability. Mangostar (talk) 03:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Well, sure, but the prod won't expire until after the AFD does. --Dhartung | Talk 18:39, 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. Neıl ☎ 11:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    DC Comics martial artists[edit]

    DC Comics martial artists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(delete) – (View AfD)

    This article is comprised primarily of original research in the sorting and synthesizing of martial arts schools throughout the DC Comics fictional universe. Efforts in the past for rewrite for a more encyclopedic tone, not based in original research have met with some resistance, ([32], [33]). Additionally, martial arts prowess itself is not a notable aspect of comics in the superhero genre, let alone DC Comics. The article ill defines the definition of martial artists, focusing primarily on Eastern martial arts and their structures. Although a compromise of a list article has been offered in the past; ultimately, the qualification for inclusion in this article and any subsequently produced derivative would be arbitrary, at best (which is likely why other superhero genre comics publishers do not have there own "(Comic Publisher)s martial artists" articles). -Sharp962 (talk) 03:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

    • Delete: per nom. It's not original research to point out verifiable facts, although with the frequent retconning comics do, "facts" aren't as verifiable as all of that. It's a WP:SYN violation to declare them "martial artists" at all. Who says, and how come? Does every character who fights barehanded, have an epicanthic fold and a vaguely Oriental name qualify?  Ravenswing  19:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There are martial arts in many parts of the world, and the rule of thumb seems to be that being trained to fight hand to hand means you are trained in martial arts. --NickPenguin(contribs) 04:52, 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 Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ajax Orienteering and Hill Running Club[edit]

    Ajax Orienteering and Hill Running Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable club. The only reference is to the club's own website, and the club gets no hits on GoogleNews and nothing in any reliable sources on ordinary Google.

    A previous PROD in January was removed; see the subsequent discussion at Talk:Ajax Orienteering and Hill Running Club, where an assertion of notability is made, but no evidence has been offered. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:17, 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. --PeaceNT (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Frank Terreri[edit]

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

    this article is about litigation between Mr. Terreri, as plaintiff, and the United States, written solely from Mr. Terreri's perspective as if the allegations in the complaint were all true, with the only source a quote from the ACLU, who probably underwrote the litigation; it is so biased that it cannot be edited to neutrality, only a complete rewrite could achieve that goal; moreover as noted in prior tags and talk page comments, it is unsorced, a news story and not an encyclopedia article and its tone is inappropriate, those comments have been up for quite some time and no fix has occurred Jlawniczak (talk) 02:42, 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 (non-admin closure). Since lists offer the capacity for sourcing and further information, reasonably clear consensus discusses that this article should be improved, not deleted, and that "already a category for this" is not a valid deletion rationale. WilliamH (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of hard rock musicians[edit]

    List of hard rock musicians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Another list which is better presented at Category:Hard rock groups Moondyne 02:23, 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, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 07:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dudley Henriques[edit]

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

    non-notable vanity article riffic (talk) 02:02, 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 Redirect to Alberta general election, 2008 for the time being, enabling spinout of any actually notable people. The rest can safely be deleted, and I will re-visit the article at some point to do this. Black Kite 18:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Liberal Party candidates, 2008 Alberta provincial election[edit]

    Liberal Party candidates, 2008 Alberta provincial election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This page is simply a dumping ground for non-notable bios. This type of list/article is a common problem on Wikipedia.. The people weren't notable enough to get their own bio, yet here we are giving them each a bio. A major reason for deleting nn bios, is they tend to receive little editorial attention, and are neglected. Dumping them here simply ensures they won't get any attention. It also bypasses some of the monitoring that occur, for articles in Category:Living people. If you read this article (and earlier versions), we're basically publishing the kind of trivial stuff a candidate normally gives to the local newspaper to print in their profile during the election. Most people never had substantial independent coverage. If anybody did have sufficient coverage for a bio, then they should be given a bio, under their name, where it would actually be found. Rob (talk) 01:53, 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) 16:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Getting Through[edit]

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

    Non-notable song; didn't chart or win any awards. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:35, 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. Wizardman 20:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ESPN Presents Stadium Anthems[edit]

    ESPN Presents Stadium Anthems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Doesn't seem to be a notable album. No third-party reviews, no album art, no label even. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:25, 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. There was a very clear consensus for the article to be kept though, in some cases, with the suggestion that the page should be merged into appropriate articles. If any editor wishes to pursue the question of the page being merged then that should be raised on the talk page as a post-AFD editorial matter. (Non-admin closure.) BlueValour (talk) 23:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Buffy the Vampire Slayer DVDs[edit]

    NUnnotable listing of the individual DVDs. Wikipedia is not a sales catalog and such excessive detail on the DVD releases of this series are wholly inappropriate and excessive. The main article already has a useful, and appropriate summary of DVD releases in table form with the relevant information. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • That category only has a handful of articles, in large part because many others have already been deleted. Its interesting that somehow because its "Buffy" somehow its all keeps, but on all the others its rapid fire deletes. Buffy's notability doesn't convey to the DVD releases, which are unnotable and do not need to have sales catalog type listings to receive sufficient coverage. This is seriously undue weight on a minor aspect of the series. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sourcing does not equal notability, but you say keep on any and everything that goes through AfD, so I don't expect you to argue otherwise. AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A good list is already in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, why have it in two places and what makes it worth having in its own article instead of just leaving in the main or merging into the episode list? AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:18, 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 No consensus to delete, which defaults for now to keep. There seems to be a growing consensus (but not yet enough to close a deletion discussion that way) to merge this back into the Earthworm Jim parent article. A proposed merger may be in order, I'll leave that to the talkpages. So, no consensus to delete, also no consensus as to "how" to keep it. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Earthworm Jim items[edit]

    List of Earthworm Jim items (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This article asserts no notability through reliable sources and is just an in-universe repetition of items used in the Earthworm Jim video game series. This information only needs a brief mention in the video game articles, and not a whole un notable unreferenced article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete with extreme prejudice. Is this even a copyvio? Potatoswatter (talk) 01:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The references and arguments made to keep this article are not helpful; there is no demonstration they have anything to say about the items of the game other than restating what they are, and without notability, issues such as not paper or "I don't like it" don't even come into play. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say what the references said. I said they were out there. that removes the sourcing problem. We can assume that the game itself is notable, yes? We don't need to go through that argument. then we are at a point where the sub-portions of the game come into question. Certainly one weapon by itself isn't notable. But as a whole we are guided by WP:CLN on the subject.

    # ...since the notability threshold for a mention is less than that for a whole article, you can easily add a mention to a list within an article, without having to make the judgement call on notability which you would need to make if you were to add a whole article -- if someone else feels that it is notable enough, they can always linkify the mention and create an article anyway

    I'm also not sure how "i don't like it" doesn't come into play here. I'm not accusing editors of pushing for deletion because they don't like games, explicitly. I'm saying that they are probably more inlcined to vote that way and that inclination doesn't make for a good argument. "cruft" isn't a complete argument. furthermore, in the cases where "cruft" is shoehorned into a complete argument, "wikipedia isn't paper" provides a pretty coherent response. There is no trade off in keeping this list. We don't face exclusion of a possibly more notable article if this list is kept. Protonk (talk) 04:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be fair, that's why we have WP:FICTION and guidelines like WP:CLN and WP:SAL. And I agree with you about the sourcing. It isn't in the article as of right now. I'm not opposed to adding this to a list on the main article, but we've got to clear afd and adda merge tag for that. Protonk (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Granted, but WP:WEIGHT is a policy, while the others guidelines. The main article really should contain the more notable items if they really do matter much to the game; in prose, rather than a list. Furthermore, while the items can doubtless be cited for what they are, I doubt that they will have third party, reliable sources to establish that they are real world noteworthy and thus worthy of their own article. WP:FICT and SAL are essentially clauses of Notability, so I would think that notability takes precedence, which is in turn subject to RS and NPOV. --Izno (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are correct, but I don't think (not that it matters) that WP:WEIGHT is the appropriate policy here. Sure, if there aren't reliable sources, there isn't an article, but it isn't as though this article was formed to put forth a controversial opinion about the Plasma burster. I think the appropriate guidance is WP:GAMECRUFT, Pt. 3 (as I say below), because it specifically disallows this kinf of list. A lot of people are quoting or paraphrasing Pt. 7, which is great, but it isn't agreed upon. Protonk (talk) 23:48, 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 Keep per WP:SNOW and per improvements of article. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    King Edward VI School, Spilsby[edit]

    King Edward VI School, Spilsby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    As this article is written, notability is not immediately apparent. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Give me a chance, I haven't started working on it properly yet. I am compiling the article in a word document sandbox on my laptop and will upload it sometime in the next couple of days. As a rough guideline it will end up pretty much like the entry I compiled for a neighbouring Lincolnshire Grammar School Skegness Grammar School which has a similar length of history 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 00:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment You may want to consider editing on-wiki from now on. Not only may you dispense with complicated formatting translation issues, you put more of the article online sooner, and you gain the benefit of collaboration with other Wikipedians. Wikipedia articles should not be thought of as something you upload when done. --Dhartung | Talk 03:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well Dhartung, the reason I have recently started doing it that way is evidenced by this very AfD discussion. It is very difficult to build a complicated entry complete with tables and references all in one hit. Here for example I opened with a couple of starter paragraphs, just to get the topic up onto wiki and SIX MINUTES later (while I was adding further info in edit mode) our friend Ecoleetage hit the article with an AfD tag. Using sandbox is impracical as it may take two days to build a coherant entry but sandbox is wiped every 12 hours. Sadly I have not yet worked out how to use my userspace (which would be an obvious and ideal answer if I can suss it out) and a core build in MS word works OK for me except for the exclamation marks that don't transfer properly. 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 16:02, 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 redirect to Cardinal direction#Watch face. I had to take a moment on this one, since the "article is a how-to guide" argument is reasonable. Then came the argument that the subject is covered in encyclopedias. Well, I looked at the sources and the books are not really "encyclopedias" in the traditional sense [that means: reference works which inform more than instruct] but rather educational books for youngsters which have "encyclopedia" in the title. Still the argument is not entirely without merit, since coverage in published works like this does contribute significantly to notability. I have read from the discussion that content from here has been merged and remains valid. I am calling this a redirect so that the content is in one place, and not split over two articles. Anyone interested in viewing the original article here may still use the history record which will remain online. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Compass direction using a watch[edit]

    Compass direction using a watch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    100% of this article is covered by WP:NOT#HOWTO. Should be in WikiHow. Potatoswatter (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Several of us have now merged to cardinal direction#Watch face. Potatoswatter (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't argue with that. I personally added the method to relative direction long ago. But this is way too much information. My wording is:

      Face the sun and check the compass. In the northern hemisphere, before noon, the compass points to your left hand. After noon, it points to your right. The opposite is true of the southern hemisphere.

      To give instructions to someone who knows left from right, and doesn't have a compass, all you need to say is

      The sun in the sky and the hour hand of a 24-hour clock face both revolve over 24 hours. If you hold such a watch horizontal and point the hour hand at the sun, south will be at 24-o'clock in the northern hemisphere. In the southern hemisphere, north follows the hour hand if 24-o'clock is oriented towards the sun. For more common 12-hour clocks, use 12-o'clock instead and bisect the angle formed by the hour hand. This method does not work near the equator, and errors are introduced by local time zones.

      Still a bit cumbersome, but a whole article isn't needed. Potatoswatter (talk) 11:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A children's encyclopedia is specialized. You need to clarify your argument. Potatoswatter (talk) 13:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point of that policy is that Wikipedia should not read like an instruction manual or text book. It is mainly a matter of presentation. The essential facts are worthy of coverage here since they are clearly notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point; I agree that some of the content can be salvaged to another article if and when this article is deleted. Gary King (talk) 21:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying that a howto article should be kept if it's accurate. I'm saying that I find the fact that and why this method works interesting enough for an own article. I've added now an explanation to the article, hope that makes it more clear that this is not just a howto. --Cyfal (talk) 22:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I know it's only an essay, but I do note that "It's interesting" is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Interest is good, so far as it goes, but doesn't really contribute to the encyclopedic content, and explanations of why a process works would make a better article about the science than the activity. I think the merger into "Cardinal direction," as done above, covers all that needs to be covered here. ◄Zahakiel► 00:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I did so in both articles [34], [35]??? (Although the explanation is first given for the Northern Hemisphere and then only a short sentence for the Southern one.) If I missed your point, please simply correct me by updating the articles. Best regards, --Cyfal (talk) 10:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah - you did indeed. You must've added that after I initially viewed the article currently up for deletion. Thanks. Normally you'd say in the Southern Hemisphere, BTW (although it sounds less logical when you think about it). Grutness...wha? 23:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine, I've changed the on into in now (such things are still tricky for a non-native speaker... thank you.) --Cyfal (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, it's hard to get an unbiased perspective on "abuse of power" by a democratic committee with no oversight. Most of us see this article only as a textbook case of one particular rule, HOWTO. Potatoswatter (talk) 13:14, 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 speedy deleted by User:MZMcBride (G7 - author request). Canley (talk) 03:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of symbols found on electronic equipment[edit]

    List of symbols found on electronic equipment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-free image gallery. Lacks context or purpose. MBisanz talk 00:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The purpose of this list is to serve as a visual glossary for identifying symbols on electronic equipment. I don't see how that is pointless. These images are being used for reference...how am I breaking the rules? Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 00:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I might also add that the reason I started this article was because after a long time searching the Internet, I could not find any such list for identifying such symbols. To date, I have still not been able to identify the symbol I was looking for, and I was hoping others would help expand the list. Eventually, the list would serve me good, if no one else. Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 00:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Potatoswatter, perhaps you could correct these captions. Keep in mind it has only had one editor so far. Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 00:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe you want to use the Wikimedia Commons instead. Potatoswatter (talk) 00:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If I understand your last statement correctly, you are advising I remove this list and instead create it in the commons section. Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not so good with all the copyright issues, so I can't really give any positive advice here. Most of your images should be good because their represented organizations want public familiarity. But you need to reference that fact for each image. Also, more than half the images aren't from electronic equipment at all. Before looking at the page, I expected to see logos for the Underwriters Laboratories and such, in thumbnail form. That could be useful, as often such symbols carry legends in other languages. Potatoswatter (talk) 01:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm confused. All of the images featured, to the best of my knowledge, appear on electronic equipment. I'm not good with the copyrights, either, so it sounds like my best option is to create some sort of catalogue in the Commons area. I agree, such images would be useful, although they are registered trademarks, and I haven't worked with those before. I'm not sure about the legality issues they pose. I have copied the contents of the page to a user subpage, in case this is deleted, to serve as a base for creating the Commons catalogue. I'll have to do a bit of research before I can get the categories created there. I really appreciate your input on this, by the way. Actually, in the Commons area, it might be perfectly legal to include any image I like in the category pages. Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm definitely not one to break the law, so I want to thank you for bringing all of this to my attention, everyone. In probably a bit too much of a haste, I reproposed the original challenge here. I am now beginning to wonder if even this could get Wikipedia into trouble. If so, I'll promptly remove the entire request and abandon the project. Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 01:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you're sure that you want it deleted you can blank the page as you're the creator and only editor so that it qualified for speedy deletion. --Deadly∀ssassin 01:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Yes, I will blank it, but I was trying to save a copy for my reference in case I am permitted to create the Commons pages of which we spoke. Earlier when I copied the text to a subpage in my Username, I returned to find it missing. Am I not allowed to maintain a copy past the deletion, in order to help me put together a less controversial page? At this point I am almost ready to just give up defending my actions...I spent an entire week simply working on this page. To have to relocate images when moving it to Commons would really be inconvenient. Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 01:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You should be able to. The point for AfD is discussion of the article, not to beat you into submission to see other people's point of view. :) Blank only if you are sure. As for the copy you made, remember that the URL may be case sensitive which could be how you lost it. --Deadly∀ssassin 01:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    2? I wonder how that happened? Thanks for the link. Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 01:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks like you accidentally didn't put it under your user namespace and someone moved it. There's this [37] copy too. --Deadly∀ssassin 01:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    HELLO PEOPLE-- Yes, I am blanking the page. My question is whether it would be acceptable to do this in the Commons area in category format. Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 02:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The article is ready for deletion now.

    Thank you, Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 02:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Creator of the article[reply]


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

    The result was Speedy keep, nomination withdrawn, article moved to Henry S. Levy and Sons (see below & my talk page). NawlinWiki (talk) 11:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Levy's[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Levy's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Doesn't seem to be a notable bakery; I can't find any reliable sources pertaining to it. Heck I can't even figure out where it is based on the article. (Note to closing admin: If this page ends up deleted, I will be moving Levy's (department store) to Levy's. If Levy's shows up in blue after the page on the bakery gets deleted, please don't end up deleting the page on the department store -- I had this sort of thing happen once at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shane Minor.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Works for me. You do that, and I'll close the AFD. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 03:57, 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. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Leonard C. Bruno[edit]

    Leonard C. Bruno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Notability seems a bit on the iffy side. Any thoughts on this entry? Ecoleetage (talk) 00:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete - a bare bibliography does not satisfy WP:BIO, and weird pretentious phrasing. Potatoswatter (talk) 00:49, 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 by strength of argument. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of countries by coast/area ratio[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    List of countries by coast/area ratio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Many of the same reasons as for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of countries by compactness: this table ranks countries according to a rather arbitrary measurement; no sources are provided to establish the notability or utility of this measurement; the idea of "coast/area ratio" itself doesn't appear to have a Wikipedia entry; and the values obtained are very sensitive to errors, perturbations, or differences in technique in measuring areas and coastlines. —Bkell (talk) 00:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete This sounds like a mathematician's joke. It's well known that such a measurement is ill defined, as rocky coastlines have fractal structure and length depends on the length of the surveyor's ruler. Furthermore, several large countries get by with little coastline - all that matters is the harbors on the coast. Potatoswatter (talk) 00:52, 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, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 07:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oneworld.net[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Oneworld.net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:WEB. No improvement, still Only one of the sources is independent of the subject and seem to be press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines. This is nothing more than Self-promotion, which wikipedia is WP:NOT Hu12 (talk) 00:13, 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. Carioca (talk) 01:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bacteria Tower Defense[edit]

    Bacteria Tower Defense (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Contested CSD. Page does not assert notability. Except for the one to the webpage's about page, the references do not make reference to "Bacteria Tower Defense". Deadly∀ssassin 00:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete. Fails WP:N. Ketsuekigata (talk) 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, consensus is that this is a neologism. Davewild (talk) 07:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mutual Assistance Living[edit]

    Mutual Assistance Living (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Neologism, per WP:NEO. New editor, with good intentions, seeks to publicize a concept he invented and considers important. The primary sources are papers by the editor who created the article. Problems with WP:OR and WP:VAIN. Might be covered in some article on aging, but too new for a standalone article. See Talk:Mutual Assistance Living. John Nagle (talk) 04:45, 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.
    More