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

The result was keep. John254 00:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Varsity Fanclub[edit]

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

The latest boy b and sensation, apparently, though I can find no reliable sources from which to write an article. There are two Google news hits, and a couple of refs at abc.go.com where they got fanclubish interview questions, but they have yet to release an album, I can't find anything about whether their single charted or not. My speedy tag was removed as "could be notable" Corvus cornix_talk 23:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep real band, had a central role in a TV show episode [1], opening act for notable acts [2], [3]. JJL (talk) 02:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Even though I'd like to wikiobliterate them for guesting on the best show of the summer, they exist and are gaining fame with sources coming in every day. Unless they sell only three copies of their new CD, they're notable for now. Nate • (chatter) 05:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reliable sources? Corvus cornix_talk 18:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have added a reference at NME's website. Axl (talk) 20:02, 29 August 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. Maxim (☎) 19:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bridget Irish[edit]

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

Seems to be a non-notable local artist. All references I found were in the local The Olympian newspaper. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No substantial coverage to be seen, subject hasn't done too much notable, seems to be a vanity article. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 01:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete despite the plea above and some mentions of the subject that aren't in The Olympian newspaper which I found here she still appears to fail our notability and verfiability criteria. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - coverage in The Olympian is sustained over a significant period of time (years), and coverage is not just the Olympian but also includes Arts and Culture press ([4], [5]). -- Whpq (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'd originally closed this as no consensus, however SatyrTN protested this on the grounds that the sources cited by Whpq are not nontrivial coverage from reliable sources. I have relisted this in order to better establish the sources' reliability and gain more consensus. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The first reference is most definitely non-trivial. She is the primary subject of the article, and the second is arguable as it covers a festival in which she was a performer. -- Whpq (talk) 12:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:SOURCES (the article has none!) and WP:BIO on every count. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 08:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - On sources, the issue is not whether the article has sources, but whether sources exist. I've already shown that sources do exist that cover the artist, and for what it's worth, I've now added them to the article. -- Whpq (talk) 12:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: The Weekly Volcano fails WP:RS. While The Stranger is a more reliable paper to be sure, it has barely a two-sentence mention in an article that was about much more than just her. Furthermore, that paper is also a Seattle-based paper, proving that Irish is locally known, but not proving that she's notable. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 12:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - exactly... the article doesn't have any RELIABLE sources. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 13:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - If local coverage is the concern, there is a review of her performance included in an overall festival review in the Boston Phoenix. Her work does appear to have attracted notice as her performances in festivals do get covered as part of overall festival coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 14:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral two of those, sources on the bottom is valid. Otherwise, somebody put a purple tag and tag for merge to a larger article instead.--Freewayguy ^{What's up?} 18:32, 2 September 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. Maxim (☎) 19:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Lie (The Adventures of McGee and Me)[edit]

The Big Lie (The Adventures of McGee and Me) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This episode appears to not be notable. There is no episode list to redirect this to. Schuym1 (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom and WP:EPISODE. This episode lacks notability and real-world context. --Amalthea^Talk 18:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drake and Josh (videogame)[edit]

Drake and Josh (videogame) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Twice PRODded article. The first PROD gave no reason so I removed it as invalid. The second PROD gave the reason that the article was non-notable. This was contested by another editor on the basis that this was also not a valid PROD. I'm not sure I agree with that, but I'm not sure I agree the game is non-notable either - Google seems to suggest it has had a lot of coverage. I don't personally like the article - it is not especially well written but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete. The article is, however, unreferenced and contains some opinion - it certainly needs improvement IMO, but I am neutral on deletion. As there are certainly at least two editors who think it should be deleted I am bringing it here to establish concensus. Ros0709 (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - somehow we have got 2 nominations. PhilKnight (talk) 22:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 22:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It has long been established that most games that sees a retail release on a major console will meet our notability guidelines, because virtually all of them see reviews in established print sources related to that console. I don't happen to have a stack of Nintendo Power in my attic, but I see no reason to believe this game will be an exception. WP:VG/M will be able to help. User:Krator (t c) 23:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — First, keep in mind that just saying that an article is unreferenced and has original research are not a valid deletion arguments, but rather reasons for cleanup. Second, there exists an IGN review of the game here. MuZemike (talk) 03:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heh, that's a review of Drake & Josh: Talent Showdown, different game. Someoneanother 12:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's confusing. Article should also be renamed to avoid ambiguities. In any case, I still say that we keep as this a major retail release. MuZemike (talk) 14:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - We keep articles based on potential. THQ released it for a major console so it meets notability.S. Luke 11:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by S Luke (talk • contribs)

• Not necessarily; you need to verify that with reliable sources, which have been already given. MuZemike (talk) 16:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep there are two reviews on metacritic: GameZone and Nintendo World Report, so notability is technically covered. Games aimed at kids are not guaranteed magazine reviews, even if they are out there it's not like every magazine covering the format will have bothered. Couple that with the fact that the two sources are not exhaustive, it's not going to be a big or well cited article, but it's over the hurdle I guess. Someoneanother 12:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This is a retail release for a major console. SashaNein (talk) 13:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The current article has references, and passes the appropriate criteria. Leonard^(Bloom) 17:56, 29 August 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. Maxim (☎) 19:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Marie May[edit]

Gina Marie May (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability not established through reliable sources. IMDb doesn't show any notable roles. Wizardman 21:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete.

“

Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. [FAILED] Reliable means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. [FAILED] Sources, defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred. [FAILED]

”

A Prodigy ~In Pursuit of Perfection~ 22:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the same rationale as A Prodigy. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:43, 29 August 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. Maxim (☎) 19:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's really nothing to merge.

25,000 BC in art[edit]

25,000 BC in art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is based on a time period from which hardly anything survives. In over one month of existance, no-one has bothered updating it with new information/references and etc. I just don't think it is important or detailed enough to remain on Wikipedia. It will do nothing to help anyone researching the respective title. Why should it remain? A Prodigy ~In Pursuit of Perfection~ 21:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Good reasons presented above. Also, the section in it labeled Art lists only two works, and one of them, the Venus of Willendorf, is stated as being created between 22,000 and 24,000 BC which means it doesn't satisfy the conditions established by this article's name. This article just has no discernible utility. --Quartermaster (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Also may I add, how can anyone hope to fill in the Events, Births and Deaths sections? You may as well ask me to stop bullets in their track by just holding out my hand. A Prodigy ~In Pursuit of Perfection~ 21:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, these "[year] in x" articles are usually garbage, and on top of that it does not make sense to speak of 25,000 BC as a year. There is no reason to have a year in x article in this case, information should be, and probably already is, in a real article, i.e. prose. Punkmorten (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for good reasons above. Could have been WP:PROD without a "vote". ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: About as possible as "10,000 BC in NASCAR". Nom and above commenters summarize perfectly. Calor (talk) 22:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge:I agree with the above assertion that the birth/death section headings are not applicable in this case and should be removed (was included most likely as a template copy/paste). However I disagree with the notion that this article should be deleted. I don't understand the "it hasn't been updated in a month" argument at all - under that criteria hundreds of thousands of articles would have to be deleted everyday. I would not in a million years (pardon the pun) think spontaneously to do a search for Venus of Willendorf - never heard of it individually. But a person may be interested in finding out what type of art was being produced during certain time periods. I suggest instead of simply deleting - merge this with some of the other prehistoric "years in art" into a larger article with more content, rather than being so compartmentalized. I suggest perhaps on List of years in art that this article gets combined with other articles currently listed under the "Paleolithic" heading. That would most likely make this more useful than as it exists now. Keithh (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the information into an article on prehistoric art (I'm sure there's one around). I don't mind the XX in Art articles (I don't get the bias against them from others), but in this case this isn't even an exact year. No one has dated anything to exactly 25,000 BC, and there are other factors that render this rather useless. The fact this was a cut-and-paste also suggests little thought was given to the article. I do, however, agree with Keithh's statement that "lack of activity" is not a valid AFD criteria. Lots of articles are created as stubs and go for months and even years before anything is done with them. Wikipedia has no time limit. 23skidoo (talk) 13:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete at worst, Redirect at best. These kind of titles should be used when you can, with reasonable accuracy, place something to some specific year. If all we have are rough estimates (and both referenced articles mention estimates that are within a couple of thousand years) they should be put to some article with a wider coverage. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:54, 29 August 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. Maxim (☎) 19:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Central Asia Health Review[edit]

Central Asia Health Review (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Badly-garbled "article" about a non-notable online magazine which, when searched for with Google '-wikipedia' only comes up with 6 hits: [6]. This article has already been deleted once via a prod, but the recreation indicates an objection to a prod, so it can't be speedy deleted now. But read this thing. Everything but the first and the last sentence is just... nothing. Corvus cornix_talk 21:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. When reading through it, hardly anything makes sense. Poor grammar is a feature throughout. Also coupled by the damning lack of references and citations, you may as well remove all the text and replace with the words, "Delete me." A Prodigy ~In Pursuit of Perfection~ 21:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not a good sign of notability when you can't find an on-line magazine, um, on-line. Body of article is incohernt nonsense. ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Ninguable. Lady Galaxy 22:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above: no verifiability, body of article is nonsense. Cliff smith ^talk 23:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy. The article's clearly a work-in-progress, which is why there are those ellipses and so much of it makes little sense. We have no way of verifying notability, so it clearly doesn't belong in the main body of Wikipedia, but deletion recommendations fail WP:DEMOLISH and WP:POTENTIAL.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 02:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only six hits, most of them just lists of publications, doesn't inspire confidence. And it's not a work in progress, it was already here in June and PROD deleted. You can see the original version at http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Central-Asia-Health-Review Corvus cornix_talk 18:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 13:02, 29 August 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. --Angelo (talk) 08:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Akpan[edit]

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

Player does not sufficiently satisfy WP:ATHLETE in that they have not played a game for a fully professional league, noting that soccer is a professional sport. In addition, player does not sufficiently satisfy the notability criteria guidelines as outlined by WP:FOOTY in that they do not play for a professional team, have played in a competitive fixture, or have senior international caps/Olympics caps. GauchoDude (talk) 20:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GauchoDude (talk) 20:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - NN, no encyclopedic value to this project. Also, I could have sworn this had another AFD, but, also, no correct references. This possibly could have been speedied. --Lord₪Sunday 21:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom Quentin X (talk) 23:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails notability at WP:ATHLETE. --Jimbo^[online] 07:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 12:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Alexf⁴² 18:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete player currently fails WP:ATHLETE. - Basement12 (T.C) 18:51, 31 August 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 merged and redirected to Scottish Unionist Party (1986). --Reinoutr (talk) 10:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Unionist Youth[edit]

Scottish Unionist Youth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Youth wing of the Scottish Unionist Party, a minor party with less than 120 members, that is highly regional, and only contested six council seats in one election. In addition, the party has never won an election. Should be merged into main article. Also notability query, since December. - MacRusgail (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —MacRusgail (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —MacRusgail (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect. Seems clear. ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect - provided a source can be found to verify its existence; otherwise, delete. Warofdreams talk 09:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it certainly exists - here's their forum - however, as you can see, the activity is low.--MacRusgail (talk) 13:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above; notable content, but not enough to merit its own article. Paradoxsociety (review) 05:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect per above. Stifle (talk) 12:44, 3 September 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. Mr.Z-man 02:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Holt (designer)[edit]

Michael Holt (designer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:N, WP:V. Wizardman 20:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support deletion. With all due respect for Holt, he is not particularly a notable figure in the world. Lack of detail and everything you yourself pointed out. I don't see any particular reason to oppose this request. Not unless someone performs a miracle act to turn the article around -_- A Prodigy ~In Pursuit of Perfection~ 21:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - He appears to be a significant stage and set designer. I have no familiarity in the area so I may be misinterpreting what I find. Admittedly these are more in the way of drive-by mentions, but [7] and [8] specifically credit him as the set designer. And [9] specifically calls out his set design as part of the play's review. Additionally, he is a published authoer and his work on stage design is significant enough to be added as reading material for drama course curriculum. [10]. -- Whpq (talk) 13:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per A Prodigy. Stifle (talk) 12:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lack of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and redirect to Plies (rapper), in the absence of any reliably-sourced material beyond the name of the album. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Da Realist[edit]

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

Originally proposed for deletion, I thought consensus would be better to settle it. As for my actual vote, I say Redirect to Plies (rapper), as there's not enough third-party info yet, but when such becomes available, it can be restored without a lengthly Deletion review process. Tom Danson (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article has sources that say that the album is real and that Plies is recording new songs for it. SE KinG (talk) 21:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable sources. Wordpress is for PR releases. Corvus cornix_talk 21:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plies myspace says "DA REALEST COMING IN DECEMBER" or whatever it says. SE KinG (talk) 21:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even mention the Myspace link in my comment because I thought it was obvious. MySpace is not and has never been considered a reliable source. Corvus cornix_talk 21:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention a single has already been released and the fact that on "Definition of Real" it says something like "Da Realist... third times a charm." or something. SE KinG (talk) 03:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Adding on. How about Plies official website? Last time I checked, a lot of album articles use artists official sites as reliable references.

• Delete. Fails WP:NM, lack of reliable sources, MySpace pages are not a reliable source. DiverseMentality^{(Discuss it)} 23:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Plies (rapper), official site confirms album. DiverseMentality^{(Discuss it)} 04:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. What good do you feel deletion will do that redirection won't do just as well? Tom Danson (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no problem with redirection, if you can find a reliable source to indicate that the album is actually going to be called that. Corvus cornix_talk 18:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Edited the reference to a more reliable source, which is part of the artist's Record Label's. [11]

Carlols 88 10:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Which makes that link a primary source and therefore not a reliable one. Corvus cornix_talk 18:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would a source thats part of the artists record label not be reliable? Have you got no clue of the music industry? What good would passing on incorrect information be to them? Exactly, nothing at all, look at the bottom of the website..Carlols 88 22:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please remember to remain civil, and please read Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources. Corvus cornix_talk 18:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alright, my bad on that, you havent answered my question though, why is a site partially owned by a record label an unreliable source? Its in no way in their best interest to provide with incorrect information, therefor reliable as far as I know, I see no reason to either delete or Redirect this. Carlols 88 21:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Primary sources fail Wikipedai's conflict of interest guideline. Corvus cornix_talk 19:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Far as I know, its a reliable source and it fits the description of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources, may I quote "Primary sources — writings on or about a topic by key figures of the topic — may be allowable, but should be restricted to purely descriptive explanations of the subject or its core concepts." Purely descriptive of the subject and its core concepts, therefor allowed? --Carlols 88 (talk) 22:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Beating a dead horse. Corvus cornix_talk 20:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Not quite beating a dead horse, since you still haven't answered anything I asked? Besides posting a few wiki links that work in your disadvantage (read, my previous post), links provided by the people in charge of artists and their releases will be seen reliable for the entire world, could you try to explain me in your own words why they would be unreliable, instead of posting this wiki page that just has a lot of words in it but doesnt say anything, really. --Carlols 88 (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • You've been given your answer. Provide a reliable source. The link to the record company's own website is not a reliable source. I've repeatedly pointed you to guidelines and policies on this issue, which you apparently refuse to read. This is the last comment I have to say on this subject. The closing admin will make the final decision as to whether it's a reliable source, but I have given you plenty of time to find one. Corvus cornix_talk 22:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Plies (rapper), album fails WP:MUSIC, no mergeworthy, verifiable content that isn't already in target article.
  The name of the album is backed by the reliable, primary source given above. Primary sources can very well be used to extract facts, and it is in that respect the most reliable source of all. Amalthea^Talk 13:03, 3 September 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. Maxim (☎) 19:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Racism faced by Bihari people in India[edit]

Racism faced by Bihari people in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fantastic hoax. Complete and unbridled OR. Almost none of the references mentioned in the lead even remotely make a reference to India, let alone Bihar or Biharis! The author seems to have given a free run to his imagination. Sarvagnya 19:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Sarvagnya 19:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. I think it should have been speedied, but alas it is too long and dresses itself up to be more important than what it really is... Lady Galaxy 19:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP. Why because;

• there are 60+ cititations from major indian sources (NDTV, Times of India, Hindu, etc)
• each one from a reliable source inside India
• this is a debate currently inside Bihar and india as seen in ALL the sources. chk sources
• each of the indicents are real and have been backed up
• the arguments are valid, sourced and reliable.
• it is about Bihar and Biharis - pls show where it isn't
• point is that this is already public news and information- hence 60+ references
• article does not take itself too seriously. Its small and well referenced. its a serious topic. reports of people being deported and murdered. hope that is enough for you to take seriously.
• places in to context prejudices held by indians, which have been documented by indians, like M J Akbar
• your statement above that it has nothing to do with biharis shows that you choose not to read the article
• you stated that people react to bad behaviour, which isnt racist. Are you sure? why are people being up rooted and killed for "bad behaviour"?
• deleting will result in an important current event being taken off wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notashamed (talk • contribs) 20:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notshamed, I fixed your comment. Now to my opinion on this situation.

• Keep, and rewrite. This is a perfectly fine article, just not written in correct standards. This is written like a newspaper article. --Lord₪Sunday 21:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, rewrite and change title. The article has a lot of information related to one common theme, I however do not think it is racism. Docku^Hi 21:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Bihari people after trimming. The subject's highly encyclopaedic, but this article is massively longer than the Bihari people article and that's not appropriate. The Definition of Racism section belongs in racism to which this article should link.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I still have difficulty accepting racism as the right word. I should have thought that people from Bihar and the people who discriminate them (as per the article) belong to the same race. Pls correct me if I am wrong. Wouldnt it then be just prejuduce or decrimination or some other more appropriate word? Docku^Hi 02:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I understand that but Afd isn't the right place to have that discussion. :) Whether or not it's racism, I think it should be merged with Bihari people and a definition of racism belongs under racism rather than here. :)--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 02:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Racism faced by Bihari community is an extensive subject and therefore needs a separate article. Offcourse the subject should be briefly discussed in the main article on Bihari people. Manoj nav (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Indian are not one single race. Manoj nav (talk) 21:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Rename and Rewrite: I had proded it but the tag was removed by the author. Its WP:POVFORK. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 06:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hold: I have renamed it to Anti-Bihari sentiment in India and am trying to improve the content. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 13:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)ur[reply]

• There was hardly any material in the article at the time the tag was placed. The tag was removed and a new 'under construction' tag was placed. Almost the whole current content of the article has been added afterwards. The history can be read at the article's discussion page.Manoj nav (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your move to a new title is disingenuous and does not make it any less of a hoax. Biharis enjoy the same rights under the Indian constitution that other Indians enjoy. The very premise of the article is WP:OR. Sarvagnya 19:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The article never says that the racism faced by Biharis is legally enforced by the government of India unlike legal apartheid, which existed in South Africa. Manoj nav (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP, please: If someone is anti-black, anti hindu or anti jewish what are called? from my understanding they are called racists. From what I can gather, Biharis are facing somthing very similar inside India, and outside the Hindi belt. I think if you are on the recieving end of anti Bihari feeling, you would call it racist. Its what I read when i go to Bihari websites. Will leave it to you all to decide its fate, but its a pity that there is a dispute over an issue that has led to the deaths of hundreds and deportation. So much for Wikipedia

Comment BIMARU has nothing to do with anti-Bihari sentiment as mentioned in the article. It constitutes WP:SYN. BIMARU is a humorous epithet used to describe economically backward and crime-prone states. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• BIMARU is part of the problem also. It is a prejudiced view of Hindi speaking India...the northern states. Any other name could have been chosen to describe these states, but one that relates to the Hindi word for sick has to be questioned. UP is the second richest Indian state by GDP, Bihar has one of the higest growth rates, Rajasthan has its top tourist attractions, MP has economically advanced regions like Bhopal and Indore. Why isnt Maharasdhtra or AP. For they have rural pverty to such an extent they have farmer sucides + AP has maoist violence which doesnt exist in MP, Rajasthan, and most of UP. Why isnt the North East part of BIMARU, what is so good about those states? What about J&K, West bengal? What makes WB stand out over UP, which is richer and better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frompatna (talk • contribs) 14:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need a reference to equate the epithet BIMARU with the phrase "anti-Bihari sentiment". The reference provided for BIMARU [12] does not mention "anti-Bihari sentiment". Thus it is original research when you call BIMARU is part of anti-Bihari sentiment. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I could find a reference. http://www.livemint.com/2007/07/11001558/Ashish-Bose--The-man-who-coin.html It says, - "It was in the early 1980s that Bose made headlines by calling a spade a spade. Indian academicians tend to be politically correct and avoid terms that could insult a community or large groups of people. But in a one-page synopsis submitted to the then prime minister, Rajiv Gandhi, Bose blamed the “Bimaru” states for India’s burgeoning population. The now well-known acronym stands for Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh. However, the term had an uncanny resemblance to the Hindi word bimar, which means sick—and implied that these states also were." I will call this racism in place of anti-Bihari sentiments. The article was originally titled 'Racism faced by the people of Bihar', which has been later changed by someone. In time to come we will cite more references. Manoj nav (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP : The article is very much encyclopedic and genuine. It has suitable citations and not an original work at all. Manoj nav (talk) 20:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Please consider* http://www.ibnlive.com/news/state-of-neglect-deluged-bihar-falls-off-govt-map/72343-3.html

Today on CNNIBN "Alienating Bihar? Does it hurt when Goa minister Ravi Naik said that people of Bihar are coming across and bringing poverty, when Raj Thackeray said that the people of Bihar must get out of Maharashtra? When racism and prejudice is directed against the people of Bihar, does it hurt and one feel that there is something that one must do for the state?"

I leave it for you, fair minded editors, to decide. I sign off hoping that Truth will win (Satyameva Jayate) over a scam so-called editor do is determind to delete without proper discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frompatna (talk • contribs) 22:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP : It is absolutely essential that we keep this article. Indeed, it is not 'racism' but 'discrimination' and Biharis and the rest of Indians belong to the same race. Semantics apart, the discrimination against Biharis is a fact which cannot be brushed aside by deleting this article. I am also an Indian. But I cannot keep my eyes closed and assume that everything is hunky dory.

Govt of India plans for dev called five year plans have had Bihari per capita share as the lowest in each of the 13 plans since independence. States like J&K get ten times as much, punjab gets 6 to 8 times and Karnataka gets 4 times at an average. Bihar has no IIM, central universities or DRDO / CSIT lab. The government owned banks called PSU banks have a credit deposit ratio of 30%. In effect, 70% of the capital of Bihar gets exported. National editors like Rajdeep Sardesai use terms like Biharisation when they wish to mean criminalisation. I can go on and on, but in short, deleting this article will be like denying the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.107.154 (talk) 10:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - If it is over, then kindly close the discussion. Manoj nav (talk) 19:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but rewrite The topic is important enough to warrant inclusion, but it needs a more neutral tone. As politically incorrect as it may seem, communities outside Bihar that feel negatively impacted deserve their "day in court" as well as stating Bihari grievances. The article needs to be shortened. The theme seems to be that unemployment, poverty, overpopulation, landlessness and catastrophe (such as floods) in Bihar have caused a diaspora. Communities on the receiving ends have a litany of complaints about the immigrants, and indulge in stereotyping. This could probably be done at the right level of detail for Wikipedia in a few thousand words.

Remember, this isn't quite unique in human history. We have the English rejecting the Irish, "Okies" escaping their dustbowl and meeting prejudice in California, the Black diaspora from the South into cities in the upper Midwest, Russian disdain for Armenians and Georgians, anti-Chinese prejudice in Malaysia, Moslems in western Europe, Nepalese getting kicked out of Bhutan, and I'm going to stop but there are plenty more. LADave (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP: The article must be kept and continued. It gives a true picture of the hate and discrimination Biharis are facing in India outside Bihar. By migrating to other placed in India, they do no crime. This is a right given to every citizen of this country by the constitution. Then why should some one be allowed to impose their will and wishes over the rules written in the constitution. I strongly believe, this article must be continued. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.1.170 (talk) 07:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete: Saying that Biharis face racism in India is as funny as saying that Texans face racial discrimination in USA. Totally POV. Jingoistic sentiment is found everhwere in India. Every linguistic group in India feels that it is "discriminated against" in some way or the other. If this article is kept we will soon have a hundred "Racism against X in India" put up by every disgruntled jingoist. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Nor is it a newspaper. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 18:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Response to Deepak> Not at all sir. It says more about a country if 100's of minorities/ regional groups feel discriminated against. Are there others? Of course there are. And they should be part of Wikipedia. These events are part of any industralisation process, and like witht he UK, USA, Germany etc it should be recored in history forever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notashamed (talk • contribs) 19:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Last point to user Deepak> The situation of Biharis is not like Texans. Its a poor comparison. Its more like African Americans, Native Americans, Irish in the UK, Tamils in Lanka, Indians in Fiji. These communities have been prejudiced against not only by the state, but also local communities.
• Keep, Wrong reason for deletion. Article is well sourced with reliable source. --SkyWalker (talk) 12:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being a hoax is no reason for deletion? And... "Article is well sourced with reliable source..." -- which article are you talking about? Sarvagnya 18:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: this article is now redirected to Anti-Bihari sentiment in India, which has 65 sources. That's much more than enough to establish notability. In recent past, such sentiment was prevalent in North-east and Biharis had no option but to flee away from there; and very recently politically motivated moves in Maharashtra should be known to all. Just google search for Raj Thackeray and Bihari: you'll get it (41000+ results). I do not see the point in filing this Afd. --GDibyendu (talk) 18:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rewrite. Upon reading it, it seems to be in a slanted point of view. However deleting isn't the answer as the article is well sourced. IMO it should be written in a more neutral tone.  S3000  ☎ 18:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepPlease —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.97.231.14 (talk) 18:47, 2 September 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. Stifle (talk) 12:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interdependence day[edit]

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

Non-notable "holiday" Corvus cornix_talk 19:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, ok. I don't think so Interdependence Day is not a holiday - nor does it say it is. and thats really rather rude. This is a nonprofit sponsored international event that includes participants from the realms of scholars, politicians, artists, and young people seeking to find solutions to some of the biggest global problems of our time. Its name happens to be Interdependence Day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CivWorld (talk • contribs) 19:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Only one source and can't see notability in article. Looneyman (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't find any references for this. Original research? I agree with nom and above. Lady Galaxy 19:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I disagree with this call.

“

In the year 2000, a small group of scholars, civic and political leaders, and artists from a dozen nations,

”

I hardly think a collection of prominent individuals from a dozen nations would try to stage something non-notable, especially in prestigious cities such as Rome (and Brussels in the future). Keep this article, who knows the heights this event may reach in the future? It's early days at this point. A Prodigy ~In Pursuit of Perfection~ 19:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to say this, but I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not... Lady Galaxy 20:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm not, I guess we just don't see eye-to-eye. A Prodigy ~In Pursuit of Perfection~ 21:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Up and coming next big thing. Corvus cornix_talk 20:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I just noticed: The link for the website of the "day" is to a website called CivWorld. The same name as the creator of the article. Conflict of interest. Corvus cornix_talk 20:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, and particularly per nom at 20:40 immediately above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markdsgraham (talk • contribs) 23:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep weak delete: A few of the hits at GoogleScholar look like analysis/coverage of this annual gathering of luminaries. (Although most of the 34 hits look useless. Happy browsing!) ~ Ningauble (talk) 00:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Capable of being sourced, over 100 hits in Google News archive. COI is an issue though. Richard Pinch (talk) 07:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then please don't just wave your hand and say it could be sourced, please provide those sources. Corvus cornix_talk 18:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per WP:N "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. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort."
      • Per WP:RS: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves". If you can't find reliable sources, then WP:V comes into play, and just expecting reliable sources to magically show up is wishful thinking. We might as well just shut down AfD and follow the logic of "capable of being sourced" to its logical conclusion. Anything is "capable" of being sourced if nobody wants to bother looking for the sources. Corvus cornix_talk 23:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The question raised by the nomination is not whether the article is accurate but whether the subject is notable. The bar is set at the rather low "likely that sources could be found". No-one has yet suggested that one can't find them: I don't see any evidence that anyone has looked hard. Richard Pinch (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry, I need to retract part of that, per the comment below, which I hadn't read carefully. Someone has looked. Richard Pinch (talk) 17:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Changed my vote above to weak delete: Instead of might be notable, I am thinking might not. Looking more closely at the GoogleScholar hits, they all appear to be either off-topic or mere mentions. From major news outlets, I got nothing. There is some light coverage in obscure sources: Third World Traveller Sep 12, 2003[13]; Bucks County Courier Times, Sep 16, 2003[14] (criticism); UN Chronicle, Mar 1, 2004[15]; Electric City, Sep 9, 2004 (local)[16]; Phi Delta Kappan, Nov 1, 2006[17]. Existence is readily verified (E.g. USC Center on Public Diplomacy[18] but notability seems lost in the limbo of big shots doing grassroots organizing. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails its notability check, at this point. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:09, 2 September 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. --Angelo (talk) 08:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damien McCrory[edit]

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

Looking at his Plymouth profile, the player has not played in a professional, competitive match; therefore, failing WP:ATHLETE. As playing for the Republic of Ireland U18s, youth internationals do not confer notability. Latics (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails notability at WP:ATHLETE. --Jimbo^[online] 07:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 12:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Quentin X (talk) 18:20, 29 August 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. Maxim (☎) 19:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Young (artist)[edit]

Terry Young (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't seem particularly notable to me, although I am not an artist. Opinions? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmm, I would probably have to agree with you on this issue. I don't know if there are any high prestige awards for succesfull and/or popular artists, but if there are, this chap has won diddly-squit as there is no mention of anything on the page. It would be nice to have examples of his work displayed on the article to increase it's value factor, but seeing as there are none and considering it's small amount of information, I support the call for deletion. A Prodigy ~In Pursuit of Perfection~ 19:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no evidence of notability as an artist provided or found. A lot of Gnews hits for him in Pittsburgh Post Gazette, but as byline, where he's apparently working as journalist, which doesn't in itself confer notability either - Hunting dog (talk) 21:39, 28 August 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), Nomination withdrawn. Whpq (talk) 13:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nastia Kamenskikh[edit]

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

Non-notable singer as she only has 41 hits on Google. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 18:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn - Corvus cornix has done a great job looking for those sources. I never knew that Nastya and Nastia could be used interchangeably, so I never got his search results. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 23:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Look for the spelling as "Nastya". [19] - she and her partner won some "singer of the year" award. She's also being considered as Ukraine's representative in the 2009 Eurovision Song Contest. Hoo, she graced the cover of Playboy Russia - [20] Corvus cornix_talk 21:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. per Corvus cornix. --BoguslavM 22:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Catlin (surgery)[edit]

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

This article is even worse than a stub, a single useless sentance. Hopeless for those who want to do some serious research on the item. It contains no refrences to helpful websites whatsoever and neither does it boast a single picture. Basically I think this article is a waste of space, I've seen more informative topics deleted therefore and see no need for the existance of this.

Note: I know the catergory for this AfD seems odd (as Catlin is actually in a catergory), but it was the most sensible option I could take.A Prodigy ~In Pursuit of Perfection~ 18:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The article is going to be transwikied to Wiktionary. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 18:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So I suspect that it will be deleted anyway? I wasn't too sure whether it would be in the process, hence half the reason why I nominated this. A Prodigy ~In Pursuit of Perfection~ 19:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Transwiki away. I added a source, but I agree that this is more of a dictionary topic than a Wikipedia article. Besides it's too easy to confuse with Caitlin, and what little girl wants to be told that she was named after a surgical instrument used for the amputation of limbs? Mandsford (talk) 19:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• God, transwiki - Not even close to meeting the inclusion guidelines. Gotta check up on older AFDs now. --Lord₪Sunday 21:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, if it's the Lord's will, your prayer will be answered. Mandsford (talk) 00:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Article has been expanded and referenced. ~ Ningauble (talk) 00:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. per improvements since nom. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - New version of article is much improved. A catlin belongs in Wikipedia just as much as a catheter or a mandolin, two objects with lengthy entries.FellGleaming (talk) 15:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I change my mind. After seeing how much the article has grown, with a picture, references and a new In Fiction section, I now think it is worth keeping. All I guess we have to do now is to wait for an administrator to close this discussion -_-. A Prodigy ~In Pursuit of Perfection~ 16:35, 31 August 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. Maxim (☎) 19:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colibri (software)[edit]

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

Another program that does not come close to meeting the notability guidelines and contains no references. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 18:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Contains no assertion of notability. -- Dominus (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I find no reliable independant coverage to establish notability. ~ Ningauble (talk) 00:44, 29 August 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. Cirt (talk) 03:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate Gothic[edit]

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

Contested PROD; this article violates WP:NFT and WP:NEO, probably violates WP:NOR, and may additionally violate WP:SOAP and WP:IINFO. Article was previously deleted by WP:CSD#A7 as a group that doesn't assert notability. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I object to the deletion:
  • I object WP:NFT: Corporate Gothic exists and it is a part of the Gothic Subculture. The term also exist in the Wiki slang dictionary.
  • I object WP:NEO: terms like Mods and Punks are neologisms from origin as well. They exist on wiki because of the fact that there are or were a lot of people calling themself that way. There is a whole community in the states, calling themself CorpGoth. --78.22.1.50 (talk) 18:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)--CorpGoth (talk) 15:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I object also- the above point is a valid one, Corp Goth can denote a social subset or also a style aesthetic such as cyberpunk, crypto-anarchism, or Steampunk. I think the article needs some work on it, could use a revision but I think if your going to delete it completely you have to delete the others also - and no-one wants to see that.
  • No, we wouldn't need to delete any other articles than this one, considering WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been reading WP: OTHERSTUFEXISTS. I must say I am quite fascinated by the pokemon test. Because it is actually quite simular to the problem we are facing here. You have to know, at the moment there are -inside the Gothic scene- about 21 stereotypes. Some of them, like The Victorian Goth and The Metalhead (from origine not even a Goth...) are very well documentend. Others like The Cabaret Goth or The Corp Goth we are discussing here, are -in relation to mainstream- rather rare. I -as a simple guest- think it would be a good idea if we would make a list with 'The Gothic Stereotypes'. In stead of waiting for new references to Corp Goth, to enlarge the artikle, we can simplifie it and place it on one single page amon with its 20 brothers and sisters. I would say, the wiki version of this: http://www.blackwaterfall.com/viewall.php

It is only a sugestion? --78.22.1.50 (talk) 16:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Article is about a style of fashion that exists in the world, not an organization. Seems like the sort of thing WP should try to cover, and sources could be found. Try back issues of the "style" section of New York Times Magazine or various British newspapers. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree, the A7 deletion may have been a mistake, but I disagree that the article passes WP:NOT and WP:N generally. The only source currently in the article that passes WP:RS would be the NYT article, which mentions the term "corp-goth" once, and in the context of a company's product line. There are one or two other mentions and a smattering of cursory mentions in other mainstream media. The argument here would be whether these constitute "multiple significant" mentions. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Would a company produce a "product line" if the style of fashion and/or life style did not exist? I am sure somewhere amongst all the GHits and the few GNewsHits there are reliable sources. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 211 ghits and 5 news hits isn't very reassuring. This looks like a niche group that lies right on the border of notability. I think it's not quite across it yet. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may not think so, but I do. And seeing as WP:V is a satisfied policy, and WP:N is only a movable guideline, I think we should give it a chance. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 02:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as it verified to be a real style by reliable sources. However it needs to work a bit on the OR and add more sources. Merge could be an option. // Liftarn (talk) 19:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skateboarding brands[edit]

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

This is pure listcruft - a list for a list's sake - 90% redlinks, serves no encyclopedic purpose. ukexpat (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I disagree. The existing links actually take the user to articles which (in most cases), contain a decent chunk of information. Pictures even in some occasions! Removing the article in question would make it extreemely hard for viewers to find their desired brand. Although I admit, first the brand in question would actually need an article! Also seeing as sections 1.1, 1.1.1 and 1.5 have a decent amount of internal links, I change my stance. Keep this article. A Prodigy ~In Pursuit of Perfection~ 19:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No reasonable argument has been advanced for deletion. Redlinks are how the encyclopedia grows; many of the redlinks here point to articles that Wikipedia should have, but doesn't. -- Dominus (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Though shouldn't it be called List of skateboarding brands? Ostap 03:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - passed AFD only a few months ago and articles that pass with Keep decisions should not be repeatedly nominated in such a short period of time. The renaming suggestion in the previous AFD should be implimented. 23skidoo (talk) 13:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I don't really see any difference from this article's last AfD until today. The decision made in the last AfD back in April would basically be the same now, IMO. Also, just because an article has many red links, doesn't make that a delete rationale. WP:REDLINKS shows exactly what to do when there are red links in an article: Create them! Red links show that there is an article not yet created, but editors can create it. There's no such policy that states that articles with too many red links should be deleted. If a notable article was to be deleted, and it had many red links in it, it would actually hurt Wikipedia for 1) deletion of a perfectly notable article, and 2) the red links that could lead to the creation of them are now gone (assuming that the red links were about notable subjects) and the chances of the red links being created by editors drop. -- RyRy (talk) 16:35, 30 August 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. Stifle (talk) 12:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Woodford[edit]

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

Not notable. Individual is a low-level police officer whose name has been in the media on occasion due to his job as a junior spokesman for the OPP, not due to any notable actions or accomplishments. Should he indeed be promoted to replace his retiring superior, Cam Woolley, as is suggested in the article, AND achieve Woolley's level of notoriety, then MAYBE he will be deserving of his own entry. Until then, there is nothing to suggest he is notable enough to warrant his own entry. PoliSciMaster (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Give an article a chance. You gave it four hours. I did a google news search and it lit up like a Christmas tree. The nom is one of the weakest I've ever seen. SashaNein (talk) 19:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • All those links do is to show a policeman doing his job. Corvus cornix_talk 19:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The search isn't sufficiently strict - it finds numerous individuals with this name. Here are results (and more results) from a more restrictive search, but broadening it to the entire web instead of just news results. Mindmatrix 14:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; not particularly notable at present. If he ever becomes as much of a household name as Cam Woolley is, then yeah, absolutely. But right now this is a stub about a minimally notable police officer created by User:Fat pig73, who happens to be the single most exhaustingly oblivious-to-actual-notability editor in the entire Canadian contingent. Bearcat (talk) 23:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: unless sources are presented which show that this individual meets WP:N. DigitalC (talk) 02:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Bearcat (talk) 18:15, 1 September 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. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin standiford[edit]

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

Non-notable engineer/author. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}_{Review Me!} 17:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - Author himself is requesting its deletion on the talk page. Trying to remember the correct template to use now. Turlo Lomon (talk) 17:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ((csd-g7)). So tagged. Cliff smith ^talk 18:02, 28 August 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. TexasAndroid (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Chisolm[edit]

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

Non-notable athlete... The article makes a short mention that he is an assistant coach for a team that hasn't even played a game yet, then the bulk of the rest of the article is regarding his (non-notable) high school football career (as a player, not coach)... an online search yields no reliable sources, nor anything newsworthy... Fails WP:ATHLETE, as well as WP:V... - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:V no sources. RJFJR (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The lack of citations from reliable sources indicates that the article is not in compliance with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 12:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gaba Kawa[edit]

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

Fails WP:BK and WP:MOS-AM#Notability. No extensive coverage in any reliable sources. What is there now is all that it can ever be. Even JA wiki has no article on this short, one-shot title. As a note, I am the one who created this article, and I prodded it. Prod was removed with note of "rm prod. I could careless what ja does or doesn't do. it's being published in english, it's covered in ann - good enough for me." Obviously, I disagree as the reason given does not address the lack of meeting the guidelines about books and manga titles. A single non Japanese publisher does not meet the additional notability option for manga titles. Being listed in ANN is meaningless with regards to notability. An ANN listing is no different than an IMDB listing, its a directory of almost every manga and anime title every released. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Could this be the long lost cousin of Baba Wawa?? Mandsford (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Things don't seem quite as clearcut as you suggest, but we're way out on the fringe of policy where it's barely possible to support a weak "keep" or "delete". Deleting it on the basis of "what there is now is all that it can ever be" is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL, though, and significant since it hasn't yet seen individual American release yet and won't till the end of the year. As for sources, a bit of legwork in Google shows that while it doesn't have any mainstream reliable coverage (few mangas do), there are a lot of sources (such as about.com) that have covered it to some extent and might or might not be considered reliable. I'm not going to pursue it by arguing for a keep here, though, because this manga really doesn't warrant it - even if the notability rules were more suited to manga, it'd still be pretty non-notable. Gelmax (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your point on Crystal, but it has completed serialization in Shojo Beat with little coverage at all. The about.com notes all seem to just note its appearance in the manga, and are little more than press release. Most licensed manga do have coverage in reliable sources. Even its ANN entry is barebones, despite its being licensed. I work extensively on manga/anime projects, so I debated long and hard before nominating this one for deletion, but I just can't see it being a notable volume. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I considered disputing the prod, but couldn't quite convince myself not to. The grounds I considered doing it is that if it's licensed in English, it is very likely also licensed in multiple other languages (if only in Asia) which means it'd pass WP:MOS-AM#Notability. OTOH, without a working knowledge of any other Asian languages, though, it's pretty hard to come up with evidence of this. On the third tentacle, once the volume is published, it's more likely to get noticed and reviewed, since reviewers rarely notice series from serialization in Shojo Beat. But then again, I've seen hardly any mention of this in forums where Shojo Beat is avidly discussed. So ... um. We're on the thin edge of the notability wedge here, and I can't tell which side the slice goes. Yet. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on technical grounds, since internationally published books have generally been accepted as meeting notability requirements, especially when they are by authors with other notable works. That said, if the author has a number of borderline notable manga, a List of manga by Rie Takada (or similarly titled page) might allow a better encyclopedic presentation than a number of separate eternally lousy pages. --erachima talk 19:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - if the only real argument for deletion is borderline notability and even the nom is wringing her hands over it (admit it... you're still not sure ;) ), an invocation of WP:PAPER may be appropriate: there is no limit to the number of subjects we can cover, so if a subject is possibly notable, why not just cover it? This may also be a rather obtuse example of WP:POTENTIAL, as the manga is being published in English later this year, which means there could be some reliable sources with new information spring up. —Dinoguy1000 20:47, 29 August 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. TexasAndroid (talk) 18:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karthik Kumar N G (Vishwa)[edit]

Karthik Kumar N G (Vishwa) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find reliable sources to verify the content of the page or even that the subject exists at all. If it can be sourced that he has played cricket at state level then he is notable and I will withdraw the nomination. TerriersFan (talk) 16:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Beware of systemic bias, it may take a bit to fish out sources on an Indian actor. I believe the acting career is the potential source of notability here, but I'm not positive what the "serials" reffered to are. Probably TV shows, are the Indians still making serial movies? Beeblbrox (talk) 16:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• A fair caveat. However, extended time to dig out sources to develop notability is one thing but at the moment the content fails WP:V which needs to be fixed as a matter of priority. TerriersFan (talk) 17:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• True enough. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, I can't find anything, except for about 8 million results for "Vishwa" that don't seem related to this person. Delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above — no sources, no article. Stifle (talk) 12:47, 3 September 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. Maxim (☎) 19:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phathom[edit]

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

• Delete Doesn't seem notable, the band seems to be unsigned and their biggest claim to fame seems to be once having a song played on Fuse. Hoponpop69 (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non notable fails WP:BAND. You look better naked (talk) 12:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn subject. Libs 17:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Played 10 dates on the 2008 Warped Tour. If anymore proof of touring (I cannot find anything to back up claims of 2006+7 Warped Touring) or coverage can be found, I would change my !vote to "keep". —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 18:28, 29 August 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. GlassCobra 16:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sapientech[edit]

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

Reads like an ad, no sources, doesn't seem notable to me. Speedy tag removed by author without reason. Cliff smith ^talk 16:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Author Kstandiford (talk · contribs · count) appears to have a COI. Cliff smith ^talk 16:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-It's just plain old spam. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}_{Review Me!} 16:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Same user just made Kevin standiford, likely autobiography. Cliff smith ^talk 16:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not notable, does seem like an ad. Basement12 (T.C) 17:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that author has requested deletion of Kevin standiford. Cliff smith ^talk 18:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Article about a company that makes no attempt to assert importance or notability. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:30, 28 August 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. Google news gives many hits that appear to establish notability. Consensus also shows keep. Malinaccier (talk) 00:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skate punk[edit]

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

• Delete, I've heard this term before, but don't think it warrants its own article. How is it any different from regular punk music other than a few songs might mention skateboarding? This seems about as notable as terms like orgcore or ramonescore, or other so called subgenres that don't warrant their own pages. Hoponpop69 (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Possible Merge, or delete. This genre does not warrant its own article. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}_{Review Me!} 16:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Appears to be a well-established and widely-discussed subgenre. Is mentioned specifically in the Punk rock article and is listed as a subgenre in the ((Punk)) infobox. -- Dominus (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And, I should add, no legitimate rationale for deletion was advanced by the nominator. -- Dominus (talk) 19:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Where are you getting that its a widely discussed subgenre? Hardcore or Pop punk are widely discussed subgenres, but skate punk?

Also Wikipedia:Notability (music) does not list criteria for genre, so I'm basing the rational off of Wikipedia:Notability, as it does not seem the article has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.Hoponpop69 (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• A fair question. I got it from Special:WhatLinksHere/Skate_punk. Many of those links result from its inclusion in ((Punk)), but many do not. It was clear that hundreds of different Wikipedia articles were discussing or at least mentioning skate punk, so I concluded that it was widely discussed".

However, since you asked, I did a Google News search and found over 1,000 results; scanning the first page suggested that most of these were indeed referring to the musical subgenre and not to skate punks themselves. Top hit is from a 2003 USA Today article; #2 hit from a 2000 Seattle Post-Intelligencer article specifically about the subject. Hit #80 is from a 1995 Rolling Stone article. The phenomenon clearly exists, has done for a significant amount of time, and is widely-recognized.

Now where are you getting that it is not a widely-discussed genre? -- Dominus (talk) 20:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I suggest a reading of the discussion in the previous AFD for this article; it may be enlightening. The argument was unanimously in favor of keeping the article, and the nominator withdrew the nomination as an error. -- Dominus (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Um I got just 16 news articles when I did a google news search [21].Hoponpop69 (talk) 22:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  That's 16 articles in the "past month". -- Dominus (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I notice that you neglected to notify The Punk music wikiproject. I have corrected that for you. -- Dominus (talk) 23:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It was a well-established genre as far back as the 1980s, and should have an article here.--Michig (talk) 11:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Article should probably be kept, but I think that the article is small enough that it would do better merged with Punk instead. Just my opinion. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}_{Review Me!} 15:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well-established sub-genre. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 18:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Needs work, but history page shows it is being worked by several contributors. A small but real subgenre. To compare this to a single-band genre shows an ignorance of punk history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaohoyt (talk • contribs) 16:21, 31 August 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 Rename to List of chess video games. Personally I'd prefer to drop the "video" from that title, but we'll go with the existing consensus first and the actual name can be discussed on the article's talk page later. Waggers (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nintendo DS chess games[edit]

List of Nintendo DS chess games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I am somewhat concerned about the notability of this topic. The DS hasn't been famous for chess games, nor has it received tons of coverage because of it's chess games.  Marlith (Talk)  17:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Warrants a category at most. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to List of chess video games as mentioned below. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This is a list of chess games, several are listed and more are in the process of being written Fritz it is nice to have a list for this topic to allow other users easy access to the chess programs available for the Nintendo DS and add any other chess games that they are aware of. 19:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Green Squares (talk • contribs)

• Delete; Chess games for DS are in no way notable. I have heard nothing about chess games for DS. Even a category seems like it would be overkill Danis1911 (talk) 02:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete — While lists may be useful, it is not when it is this short as well as better suited as a category (which some even in that case may consider as WP:OCAT). MuZemike (talk) 06:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is nonsense, you cannot categorize an article if it has not been written yet. You see those red links at the list? That means no article has been written. Lists allow red links so people can know a topic exists and then hopefully an editor can come along and write an article about it in the future. Green Squares (talk) 10:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about overcategorization (regardless whether or not it'd a list or category) and not about redlinks. Please re-read my statement above. MuZemike (talk) 18:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change to merge to a new article titled List of chess video games as Someone another mentioned below. This should get rid of the WP:OCAT problem as well as help expand the list. MuZemike (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename List of chess video games or similar, covering all formats, and populate. As a chronological list containing release dates, platforms and any relevant notes it would be a useful research tool and navigational list for those interested in video chess and those interested in the game's jump to computer games and spread on the medium. Someoneanother 11:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with List of Nintendo DS games. BUC (talk) 14:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that they would already be listed there. MuZemike (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then I would think the problem is already solved. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 23:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Nintendo DS games per reasons given by BUC. Changing vote to Rename to List of chess video games per discussion below. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 23:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to List of chess video games and expand said list to cover all platforms. The games themselves may be notable, but List of Nintendo DS chess games is an odd list. The Nintendo DS is not, as far as I know, famous for chess games. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 01:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't having such an article result in a massive unsourceable list? A search on GameFAQs returns 150 results and that's only including chess games that actually have the word 'chess' in the title. This also doesn't include the vast number of chess games released on cellphones, compilation games, alternate versions/plays/takes on chess that have obscure names and chess programs that were included in many '84 Apple computers. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 01:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

150 is certainly manageable compared to the over 850 titles in the List of NES games or the over 1100 titles in the List of Famicom games. MuZemike (talk) 01:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

90% of the content on both of those lists are sourced and link to articles about the games in question. While 150+ may be much more manageable than 850 or 1100, is it really feasible to think that even 50% of the games listed in the GameFAQs search could be properly sourced and have non-stub articles written for them? -- Jelly Soup (talk) 02:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For lists, each item does not necessarily need to be notable, just verified that it exists. As long as the list as a whole is inherently notable and does not constitute WP:OCAT, then it's fine. MuZemike (talk) 05:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: for any old acceptable list. Obviously, featured lists face much more scrutiny as far as notability of each individual item is concerned. MuZemike (talk) 05:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MuZemike (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per above. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}_{Review Me!} 16:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clarify the rename, if you rename it should be called "List of computer chess software" NOT "List of chess video games" in line with the following article Computer chess and category Category:Chess software. The computer chess community does not use the term video games. Green Squares (talk) 13:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would think that, seeing as the article this AfD covers is about chess games for a handheld video game system, the name change should reflect that. If the chess community wants an article about computer chess games, let them create List of Computer Chess Software on their own time. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 02:28, 31 August 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. No consensus to delete. Malinaccier (talk) 00:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one albums in Australia during the 1970s[edit]

List of number-one albums in Australia during the 1970s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This page, along with these related articles:

List of number-one albums in Australia during the 1980s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of number-one albums in Australia during the 1990s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

are being nominated for the same reasons as this page. Each individual year listed on all of these pages now has their own separate article. However, during the deletion discussion of the 1960s page, the idea of merging the list or each separate article was brought up, this may be a better option. Classicrockfan42 (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete-For the same reason as the other list. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}_{Review Me!} 16:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Does this need an AfD? Seems like a routine editorial merge/split decision. Since the other AfD looks uncontroversial, they could have just been ((prod))ed first to see if anyone objects. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later comment: I see below that it does indeed need discussion. (Characterizing it as original work may not help the argument being made.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Bduke (talk) 00:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I find it useful on a single page. I can do a browser text search through the whole decade. It's also useful to visually scan down the lot. Is it necessary to delete it just because there's another article on a particular year? Is there a rule that stops both being retained?--Lester 05:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Objection to the removal of this list by Rusty201

Although the way that classicrockfan42 has now configured the list year by year is good and has obviously been a lot of work for him, as the creator of the original list, I object to the removal of this page on a number of grounds:

please bare with me if I repeat myself, but I am passionate to defend my original work, which took a long time to complete.

1) I would like an online resource that shows how long each album spent at number one. This new version does not show this. In the way it has been split up now, classicrockfan42 has failed to include the number of weeks that each album spent at number one. For one, I use this information in research for a radio show I produce, which is one of the reasons I put this list on the internet originally. It will take a lot of work to reinclude this information in the new chart format that classicrockfan42 has produced, and if he does not wish to include this, you couuld perhaps argue that in effect vandalised my original work (if the original is removed) has been vandalised, and turned it into a lesser quality product with the omission of weeks spent at No 1. I do not wish to spend several hours putting this info back in to his newly created product (which in turn may also make him very angry), because someone decided to take a knife to my original work. If you look at the way that the British chart entries are done, they show the entire decade at a glance List_of_number-one_albums_(UK) (although admittedly this is an external site.

Currently, if you wish to quote how many weeks an album was at number one, you have to count it manually, as this info is missing. You may also get an incorrect number due to the reasons given in point 1. Albums at number one also sometimes follow a haphazard pattern of the distribution of weeks at the top. You'll find an example of this during 1971/2/3 with such albums as COCKER HAPPY, SLADE ALIVE! and TEASER AND THE FIRECAT. They do not spend a certain amount of weeks at number one in a solid block. If the number of weeks at #1 are given in a decade wide spread with numbers of weeks at #1 next to each seperate entry, then a more accurate picture is achieved.

2) The new format, which it appears has only been done to make it the same formatting as similar USA entries, makes it more difficult to have a larger overview of the chart situation. For example, if an album was number one during more than one year, you don't get a feel for how long it was at the top (EG. Neil Diamond'S HOT AUGUST NIGHT was number one for 29 weeks at various times right throughout 1973 & 1974. Splitting the list up into years only will give the reader a false impression about the longevity of certain albums in some cases. it is not always easy to count up on each page how many weeks an album spent at #1, as it may have been spread out over a 2 year period at number one. This is especially so for albums at number one over the Xmas period. This is where a decade list is much more useful in tracking the performance of an album at the number one position. eg 1971-1972 TEASER AND THE FIRECAT by cat Stevens spent 15 weeks at No 1, over the Christmas period. You don't get this picture in the way it has been newly formatted, you only get the view of 1971 or 1972. The new way it has been formatted gives no provision to show that it also charted at No 1 in the following or previous year. If you wish to look at the popularity of an artist, such as THE BEATLES for the 1960s, or ABBA, ROD STEWART, ELTON JOHN, say for the 1970s, it is much easier to do so with the decade format with an overview rather than scrolling through various pages for each year of a decade to get an overview.

3) I see no reason why my version and the version created by classicrockfan42 cannot exist side by side. I would strongly object to the removal of the page I originally created, as it took several weeks of solid work to put it together, as an online resource. Perhaps classicrockfan42 would like to add more of his own original work to the list he created, or change it altogether, so it is more his own original work. He has in effect taken my original work, rearranged it & wikipedia is now calling for the eradication of my original, as Classicrockfan42 may not have liked the way I formatted the information stylistically. I personally think the American formatting lacks, because of the omission of weeks at number one. (Must all information be standardised to an American style? The Brits haven't done it) I think Classicrockfan42 could be rewarded for his work somehow by leaving it there side by side, but he needs to add something more to it to make it more of his own original work.

4)I WAS NOT CONTACTED by classicrockfan42 before he split up my original work up and a request was put in to wikipedia to remove my original work. I personally am not happy that it be changed to the inferior American formatting. Rusty201 (talk) 14:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1960s is now gone

The 1960s albums list has now dissapeared without any possibility to have put in my opinion on its removal. My vote could have saved it. Will my singles lists now suffer the same fate?

Rusty201 (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

links will no longer be valid

I have put some links in various articles linking weeks spent at number one to the decade lists. See links for the original text and links to album & singles lists.

Eg. Sherbet's_Greatest_Hits

"Sherbet's Greatest Hits (1970-1975) was a compilation album released on Infinity Records in Australia in 1975, at the time of the height of Sherbet's popularity in Australia. It spent 1 week at the top of the Australian album chart in 1975. It was Sherbet's first number one album in Australia and covered their single releases 1970-1975."

My_Little_Angel_(William_Shakespeare_song) "It was Shakespeare's second big hit in Australia and his first number one, making the number 1 spot in Australia for 3 weeks in early 1975."

or: Living_in_the_Seventies "Two singles were lifted from the album: "Living in the 70s"/"You're a Broken Gin Bottle, Baby" and "Horror Movie"/"Carlton (Lygon Street Blues)", the latter spending 2 weeks at the top of the Australian singles chart in 1975. "

The last two assume that someone is going to tamper with the singles lists as well.

Rusty201 (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply to Rusty201, the 1960s list was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of number-one albums in Australia during the 1960s and you were notified on your user page of the discussions by Classicrockfan42 here, here and here. Moondyne 00:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, basically per Lester. I believe that it is useful to have the whole decade on a single page. I see no harm in this. Moondyne 00:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep while this is a basic list it should be part of a greater complimentary work like List of number-one albums (UK) that work would also utilise the year by year list. IMHO these lists could be reduced to album|artist|date entered charts(release date)|1st date @ #1| last date week at @ 1 | number of weeks #1|number of weeks in the charts|, rather than the weekly format With each section having a yearly summary noting any sales/time records with see also link to the full yearly for the week by week The use of "best of decade" type recordings is common and its readily conceivable that the readers will be more inclined to look to a decade article to get an over view rather than trawling through yearly articles. Gnangarra 00:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a choice between being broken up into years and keeping it as a decade list (if the 2 cannot co-exist side by side) I still prefer the decade option as it's less messy to wade through. Rusty201 (talk) 05:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Granted I received notification of intention to delete the pages, however, I knew nothing of the fact that a different version of the work (with weeks at #1 missing) was being done before I got these AfD messages. When I did my lists, I contacted the person whose list I updated for approval, whose approval I got. Rusty201 (talk) 05:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm bewildered by moves to delete this valuable resource for what seem to be pedantic reasons. Users here are telling you it's a useful resource as it is, so why tamper with it? Lyn50 (talk) 10:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per points from Lester and Moondyne, but also taking note of Gnangarra's suggestion that would alleviate one issue that I had with the space and format SatuSuro 11:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - does not satisfy any of the reasons for deletion in WP:DEL#REASON. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The topic is encyclopedic, and the appropriateness of duplication and/or splitting of article material is a content question most appropriately discussed on the article page (or possibly the relevant project page). For what it's worth, I would certainly support recreation of the 1960s article, and I would strongly suggest to the main editor of that article that he/she request the deleting admin email copy of that text for editing and likely recreation in the future. Note that deletion is not necessarily final, as consensus can change. Debate 木 14:20, 2 September 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 partial merge and redirect. As this amount of information is clearly overkill for the parent article, yet similar information seems to be present for other soccer players, I merged just the list of goals he scored for the national team to the parent article and then redirected. --Reinoutr (talk) 11:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Healy's International goals and caps[edit]

David Healy's International goals and caps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:PROD contested by a IP user with no summary at all. This article is a fork of David Healy, being only a list of all single international caps and goals of this footballer, plus a list of "missed" matches and a list of goalscorer which actually makes no sense with the article's subject. This fork is quite unnecessary and never seen in Wikipedia. Angelo (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Angelo (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original prodder. – PeeJay 16:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This only goes to show why we should not allow prods to be removed without explanation. I note that the IP hadn't actually made an edit since January 2006. WP:PROD really needs changing as this is just getting ridiculous. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Also agree with Number 57, PROD should be fixed/improved (but that is a sob-story for another page). -- Alexf⁴² 16:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge content summary into parent article. PROD does need to be fixed. Valenciano (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per indiscriminate: "4. Statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics" ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge relevant info into parent article i.e. list of his international goals such as this one. I don't see why "Other Northern Ireland Goalscorers" and games Healy might have played if he wasn't banned/injured etc is relevant or can be proved. --Jimbo^[online] 17:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I disagree with the proposal that such a list isn't found elsewhere in Wikipedia. Although there is no football list as far as I know, there is a similar cricket list; List of international cricket centuries by Sachin Tendulkar; which is in fact a Featured List. I don't see any problem with a list of Healy's goals - some of the other data is a little excessive and maybe WP:OR. My own suggestion would be to merge it to David Healy, and if it gets too long, perhaps this list could be recreated/restored. Peanut4 (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge relevant information as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It's ridiculous to have an article just over the statistics of one person—that's why most players have a subsection in their articles. Latics (talk) 18:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Should be merged into the parent article. The list of Tendulkar's centuries is fair enough as he is the world's leading century-maker in both Test and ODI cricket. Healy's list does have a little similarity relevant as he is the leading Northern Ireland goalscorer but would sit better in the parent. The "missed games" is a nonsense though and has to be removed.--Bcp67 (talk) 19:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning towards delete or merge the list of goals only, failing to see how this is necessary to elaborate on the article subject. Could prosify. Punkmorten (talk) 22:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 12:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Add the table onto the bottom of his article, as with other players (see Roman Pavlyuchenko and Cristiano Ronaldo for examples. DJDannyP//Talk2Me 16:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think he should have this article but I am adding other details to his he sorely would want that on his stats page, also it makes the page longer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Hall of England (talk • contribs)
• merge & redirect to David Healey, possibly too much info for the player article, but I would prefer to try and avoid destroying information Fasach Nua (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Even if you include the U21 goals, Healy's article would be nowhere near as long as say, Ali Daei's. BeL1EveR (talk) 19:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:IINFO. Wikipedia is not a footy statistics collection. Stifle (talk) 12:49, 3 September 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 A7 by Orangemike. (non-admin closure). MrKIA11 (talk) 16:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piece Officers[edit]

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

Copy of Hagfish (band), hoax. StaticGull  Talk  15:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I do not see a copy here. But I definitely see an A7. So tagged. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 15:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The copied parts were removed after the nom. It probably is a real band and the creator just used the Hagfish article as a template. Anyway, it still is A7. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 15:55, 28 August 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. Xclamation point 22:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia N85[edit]

Nokia N85 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod added by User:Ironholds with the concern "non-notable product", and seconded by User:mikeblas (me). Both removed by User:98.207.254.158 with the comment "this is a fair stub".

The article describes a future commercial product which is non-notable and rapidly obsolesced commercial product. No claim of notability is given. As it stands, the article is blatant advertising--just a copy of a spec sheet. Because Wikipedia is not a product catalog nor a cell phone guide, I don't think this article is salvageable. Mikeblas (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep unless you want delete (nearly) all mobile phone articles, we need a uniform measure --Armando82 (talk) 17:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep no different than any other stub for cell phone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.157.48 (talk) 04:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom: this is spam about an unreleased phone. Cliff smith ^talk 15:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-It is just an advertisement. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}_{Review Me!} 16:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as current WP:Articles for deletion/Nokia N79. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Lady Galaxy 22:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or ReWrite. Okay - there are many Wikipedia-articles about mobile-phones (see Nokia E90 Communicator for example). Still this N85-article sems more like an advertisement and/or spam about an unreleased phone. Maybe no need to delete if the phone would be released, and if the article would have more information. Ilyushka88 (talk) 09:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Barnett (porn star)[edit]

Tim Barnett (porn star) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails to meet WP:PORNBIO, Article was speedy deleted, but then restored yesterday. JoshuaD1991 (talk) 15:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP.. I would normally of said delete if it was a "normal" porn star, but since he is also known as a serial rapist and their are newspaper articles on him I would say to keep it. He seams notable. Callelinea (talk) 19:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - As a potential BLP issue, are there any reliable sources that connect Tim Barnett to Brad Wagner, suspected serial rapist who committed suicide? Never mind, plenty on Google News Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Plus, BLP doesn't apply to dead people. But your point is still important. BDP's (neologism?) should be well-sourced too. David in DC (talk) 11:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notorious enough to be notable in my book. --Quartermaster (talk) 21:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:PORNBIO irrelevant. Generally notable as accused serial rapist who killed himself in jail. Sufficient Reliable Sources. David in DC (talk) 03:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per media coverage. However the formatting of the links needs to be adjusted as they do not indicate that they are links to ABC News. There is bias against Internet news sources on Wikipedia, so if the labelling were changed to ABC, that might alleviate potential concerns over "unreliable sources". 23skidoo (talk) 13:25, 29 August 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. --Angelo (talk) 08:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paddy Madden[edit]

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

Hasn't played a league game for Bohemians, only a friendly appearance against Burnley, an Ireland u-18 appearance, and some 'A' games for Bohemians, currently fails WP:ATHLETE. Sunderland06 (talk) 15:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Is the Irish league fully professional anyway? Punkmorten (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe so, yes. Sunderland06 (talk) 22:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually this article states that "four or five" out of the league's twelve teams are part-time, which to my mind doesn't make it a fully professional league -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE. Would fail even if he had played for Bohemians, as they do not play in a fully professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 57 07:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails notability at WP:ATHLETE. --Jimbo^[online] 12:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 12:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Quentin X (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above. Basement12 (T.C) 18:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per CSD:G4. Stifle (talk) 12:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jenah Doucette[edit]

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

This person is not notable, this article had been deleted last December. Well, she's a third placer in America's Next Top Model, Cycle 9. She had no modeling contract after the show. --ApprenticeFan (talk) 15:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - this article was actually created by Antm1023.--ApprenticeFan (talk) 15:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nomination. --ApprenticeFan (talk) 17:36, 29 August 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. GlassCobra 16:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Drive Compton Crips[edit]

Atlantic Drive Compton Crips (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Disputed Prod. This California street gang fails WP:ORG. The article is unreferenced and a search for sources finds only blog/YouTube quality coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no sources found to support WP:N. I am now going into hiding... Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 15:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete pn: I searched for WP:RS as well NADA benjicharlton (talk) 05:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If you ask me this is a speedy delete but I'll accept the regular painfully slow delete. JBsupreme (talk) 08:06, 31 August 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, or more precisely "!delete". Whether or not to merge can be discussed at talk pages. Stifle (talk) 12:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justine Musk[edit]

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

Nominated this as for if this was to be read to a non-science fiction person, like myself, there is nothing remarkable about this writer other than being married to some billionaire, which does not signify notability. If notability can be proved, I will be happy to reverse this nomination. Jay Pegg (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment, this does not help the fact that the book she has written is redlinked, hence the other reason to nominate this for AfD as well the bio is written mainly to sell books. Jay Pegg (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Redirect to Elon Musk. He's pretty clearly notable, and right now there's only one sentence about his wife in his article. -206.193.226.51 (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect. By my reading of WP:CREATIVE, being a published author is not notable on its own right, unless that person is widely cited or covered in other sources. After wading through four pages of google results that were almost completely generated by the author herself, I couldn't find any. Therefore, merge seems most appropriate. justinfr (talk) 17:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shereth 15:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - [22] shows several interviews with her, as well as reviews of her books. I believe that the book articles are just a matter of time - and based on the secondary sources, I believe that enough people feel she is notabile enough to interview, and as such, should have inclusion on Wikipedia. Turlo Lomon (talk) 15:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The publisher released "Blood Angel" in a mass-market paperback edition. As anecdotal evidence of notability, I happened to notice a large stack of "Lord of Bones" copies on the featured books table at a Barnes & Noble bookstore last Sunday. Are there quantitative measures of notability for authors, such as Amazon.com sales rankings, that could be used to assess notability? (sdsds - talk) 16:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect: Does not meet WP:CREATIVE. I would not give author interviews much weight because it is usually part of the book promotion process. I do check whether Amazon cites editorial reviews from reliable sources. A matter of time? Three years in paperback is long enough. Remember, " Notable in the sense of being 'famous', or 'popular' – although not irrelevant – is secondary." ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Doesn't the "works in many significant libraries" criterion of that guideline apply to Musk? (sdsds - talk) 01:27, 29 August 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.

Speedy-deleted by User:Orangemike. Non-admin closure. DCEdwards¹⁹⁶⁶ 16:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ABC News (United States)[edit]

ABC News (United States) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A duplicate of ABC News made by someone who also cut-pasted ABC News (disambiguation) into ABC News. I successfully reverted the cut-and-paste moves, but I cannot delete this article title. Georgia guy (talk) 14:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment based on the dab page I'd say ABC News (United States) is the more appropriate article title and that ABC News should be the dab page. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Explain your reasoning. It only says that ABC News has several meanings, not that it has several significant meanings. Georgia guy (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning is that the other articles on the dab page are in this format (naming convention wise) and ABC News is a more likely search term for any of the three than ABC News dis... etc would be. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can just click on the link at ABC News to the dis-ambiguation page and then simply look it up there. Just like any dis-ambiguation page where one meaning gets no suffix for being primary. Georgia guy (talk) 15:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or we could make it easy on people and they can go straight to the dab page and click on the one they want and it keeps the names in a reasonably similar format. Either way that isn't what this page is here for and should be kept to article talkpages. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep redirect ABC News to this page and keep things consistent at ABC News (disambiguation). Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 15:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete: This page was created via a copy/paste move of ABC News. Regardless of what the pages are named in the future this page must be deleted. If the current ABC News article is to be moved here, it can be done by performing a proper move. DCEdwards¹⁹⁶⁶ 15:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because someone does not know the proper procedure we don't need admin doing extra work. A simple redirect will save a few steps. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 15:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We do if we want to keep the edit history of the article with the article. DCEdwards¹⁹⁶⁶ 15:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There does seem to be some discussion on Talk:ABC News about this. Since consensus was reached there (where it should be discussed) previously I am changing. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 15:43, 28 August 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 close) RMHED (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MacTalk Australia[edit]

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

Delete. Fails WP:WEB. Do not see why this website is notable as it appears to one of the many computer talk forums found on the net. Trivial information with the article being created by and mostly being maintained by the webmasters. Violation of WP:COI. Endlessdan 14:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 14:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - What a massive bulk of trivia! Also very poorly referenced. There are 100s of Mac forums on the web. What makes this one special? It gets a mention in The Age twice (refs 23 & 46), both times in relation to finding features of the iTunes music store. I don't think that's enough to pull it over the line. The rest is just self referenced. According to WP:ORG, secondary coverage must be significant, which this is not.--Lester 23:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Jll (talk) 19:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Yes, I'm an admin of Mactalk Australia. 1st, we're regularly mentioned in news sites, especially this year. Yes, the page as it stands is very poor. I'll see if someone who isn't site staff will volunteer to re-write a better version. Could you suggest a similar community forum/web site that meets requirements so we have an example of what's considered proper? --Currawong2007 (talk) 13:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of having a better looking article, it's a matter of meeting Wikipedia's standards of notability. Your website seems very informative, but it doesn't appear to warrant its own encyclopedia page.--Endlessdan 19:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the couple of dozen mentions of MacTalk [23] on news sites and newspapers this year and previously need to be added. --Currawong2007 (talk) 04:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those dozen mentions are in passing or using the website in reference only. None of those articles are asserting MacTalk as notable. --Endlessdan 13:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The very first article in that search is specifically about the forum - not a trivial or passing mention. Kevin (talk) 03:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I think that the site is notable enough with the various mainstream media mentions as well as receiving an entire article on the site in the Courier Mail. [24] The long lists need to be converted to prose and the article needs a cleanup but it's certainly notable enough to stay. Mvjs (talk) 08:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mvjs so long as the article is cleaned up. JRG (talk) 05:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but tag for multiple issues. WikiScrubber (talk) 09:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless cleaned up. Notability is probably present but the article as it is is a trainwreck. Stifle (talk) 12:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done an initial major clean-up. Your request is entirely reasonable. --Currawong2007 (talk) 06:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Currawong has shown notability per independent sources, and the rest is a fix it issue, not a deletion issue. Kevin (talk) 03:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fails notability per WP:CRYSTAL. May be recreated when the movie is released. Malinaccier (talk) 20:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Protection Program[edit]

Princess Protection Program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Forthcoming made for cable movie. Needs substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. None provided. I was able to find this blurb in etonline, but with virtually no content about the movie itself. Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Crystal balling, and has no notability (even if just not yet). -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Fails WP:MOVIE. Maybe a few months down the road or whenever the movie is released the article's subject will be notable enough to warrant an article. For now, delete. Calor (talk) 16:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As above. Couldn't have said it better. --Ebyabe (talk) 22:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: there is no real reason to delete this article if no one believes it then they can just click away from the page. this is a movie coming out soon and some people like me what to know what it is about because we just heard about it. so please do not delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.219.67 (talk) 23:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC) — 76.191.219.67 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment - The reason to delete it is that it fails notability guidelines. To keep the article, you need to show that it meets guidelines or provide sound reasons for ignoring the guidelines in this case. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The movie is only 4 months away and it has reliable sources. --72.234.211.105 (talk) 01:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It does not currently have reliable sources. The only source listed is a youtube link, possibly a copyright violation and certainly not a "reliable sources that (is) independent of the subject". It also links to an imdb page, which is not a reliable source. It fails WP:MOVIE. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The article now has 3 reliable sources! Beat that:) --DCFan101 (talk) 05:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable until it's released. Stifle (talk) 14:06, 3 September 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 improvements. GlassCobra 16:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demandware[edit]

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

nn company Woo1000 (talk) 13:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, borderline speedy candidate, no showing of importance, and written in spamstyle: . . . they have established themselves as a customizable, user-friendly eCommerce merchant. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) states "A company...is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources." The article has several secondary sources - newspapers, business journals, etc. This appears to meet the criteria for inclusion in my understanding. Turlo Lomon (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - Woo1000, I see that you started editing today, and all you have done is nominate articles for deletion. So far, each article I have reviewed does appears to meet the criteria for inclusion. What is the purpose of all of these AfDs? Turlo Lomon (talk) 15:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete article is spam referenced to primary source and or press releases, etc. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - When I checked the references, 3 were press releases and 4 were coverage by secondary parties. How exactly is this not meeting the criteria? Turlo Lomon (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1, 2, 7 are primary source, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are the press releases. That's how it doesn't meet the criteria. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see your point. I interpreted the articles as a newspiece about the press release, not the press release itself. However, how about adding sources like [25], [26]. Still looking. I believe the article can definitely be expanded even more. Turlo Lomon (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I grant you that the technewsworld thing looks okay but, the other doesn't cover the subject in a non-trivial manner and is another press release (just for a different company). Generally, anything that has the sort of ending that the findarticles thing has is a press release and not an actualy journalistic article (as they generally include the relevant information in the article and not as an addendum at the bottom.) Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what is annoying? This LINK here. Subscribers only. Bleh! Well, I find it interesting that a detailed evaluation report was performed by a third party - at least the link shows that. I would love to see the information from that report added to the article (be it good or bad). Still looking. Lots of links out there but as you pointed out, majority are press release. Turlo Lomon (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - unindented here. [27] shows them as a finalist in 2008 SIIA Codie Awards. By itself, I don't think it would be worthy,but combined with everything else - I think it might just make the cut (after discounting the press releases per your suggestion). I am trying to find at least one more. Turlo Lomon (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - added two more reliable sources, including a lengthy profile at CNET News. Article should cut the mustard now. Gr1st (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Navigenics[edit]

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

nn company Woo1000 (talk) 13:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, weakly. This contains at least some indicia of notability, and the service offered by the company is slightly unusual at present. I rewrote the lead sentence to describe their chief product less abstractly and evasively. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - there are secondary sources. They are in the article. What is needs is a lot more in line citation for the above stuff, even if it comes from a primary source, to clarify where it came from. Based on the references, additional links should be easy to find as they mention coverage in other news sources. Turlo Lomon (talk) 15:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Weak Keep another article which is basically spam (the difference is the slightly reliable references section. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As a medical doctor working in human genetics research, I think that a wiki article about this company is important for the general public, including info about both its proposed innovation and the controversy about it. Daforerog (talk) 20:44, 29 August 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. Stifle (talk) 14:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Megaprint Inc.[edit]

Megaprint Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

nn company Woo1000 (talk) 13:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, possible speedy delete candidate: no showing of importance, and written in promotional style: . . . continued to grow at a prodigious rate and by 1998 was ready for another expansion. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per above. JoshuaD1991 (talk) 15:29, 28 August 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. GlassCobra 16:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solemio[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

nn company Woo1000 (talk) 13:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, possible speedy delete candidate: an online dating service company with no showing of importance. Inappropriate, essayish tone and promotional style: Millions of persons already tried a web dating service and they know sometimes privacy and safety can be an issue. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Disagree - The site has as much importance as other online dating services listed on wikipedia, namely Match.com. All facts are verifiable, including the one you indicated: Millions of persons already tried a web dating service and they know sometimes privacy and safety can be an issue. - check reference 1 http://www.articlealley.com/article_565008_39.html "It has been found from online dating statistics that around 83 millions Americans aged 19 to 45 are interested in online dating services". Nevertheless I already changed this sentence. Online dating is a recent phenomena very interesting sociologically speaking and there are few credible information about it. I know it because I've been researching it. Wikipedia should have articles on this. Since there are articles about other online dating sites, why should this be deleted? Vanessa Rôla (talk) 14:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)— Vanessa Rôla (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • WP:WAX, as noted below. If other articles with similar problems are discovered, they'll be dealt with appropriately in due time. Cliff smith ^talk 16:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Online dating is indeed interesting, and we even have a whole online dating page about it (with citations to read more). However, it's not a recent phenomenon (JDate started in 1997--that's even before Google!). Match.com is a valid article because it makes specific claims about the notability of that website, not the topic in general. DMacks (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree If you had red the articles o Wikipedia I suggested, you would know they are NOT all the same site. Sapo.pt is a web portal therefore it gathers several other websites namely Sol_(jornal), which I've used as reference an is a national newspaper. Furthermore, since this discussion has started and as a prove I was willing to re-write or edit the text I've already edited and added other references. Vanessa Rôla (talk) 11:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree Sorry to disagree once again but despite the fact online dating has been around for around 10 years (if you consider first online dating services), the online dating boom is quite recent. It has about 4 years which may be considered long time in "internet-time" but is rather recent to be analyzed sociologically. I recommend you http://voice.unimelb.edu.au/view.php?articleID=2143 that talks about "a rising trend" in 2005. Besides, you must have in mind although it has been popular over the USA for a while, the rest of the world discovered it later. Vanessa Rôla (talk)
• Speedy Delete as spam. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• NOT SPAM for deletion there should be coherent reasons, and there are not, in fact, the decision of deleting, if taken, would only show lack of coherence, because indeed, there are articles about other dating services as well as with explicit advertisement. eg:match.com and plenty of fish... baring this in mind, this article should be a part of the Wikipedia Piccolinno (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC) — Piccolinno (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • WP:WAX. If we discover other articles with similar problems, then we will deal with them apppropriately in due time. MuZemike (talk) 16:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable company/web product. There is content, it's cited, but it's all in support of the background material, not the Solemio itself. The article isn't online dating, so it doesn't matter how well cited and important that idea is in this article. The only thing saving this article from speedy-deletion is the statement about how many people use it--that's a claim of notability and it has a cite. Now whether a simple claim like "reached hundreds of thousands of users" meets our standard for websites, I don't think so (and I can't read the Portugese cite to know what it actually supports). DMacks (talk) 16:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree Most of the references that were used are there to confirm the information about Solemio. I'm sorry you can't read Portuguese but the service is Portuguese and well Known in its country (which I believe makes it notable). Besides it doesn't seem fair to exclude a reference only because you don't know the language. Vanessa Rôla (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Smerdis and Jasynnash: spam. Cliff smith ^talk 16:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Not Delete PlentyofFish was not erased, it stood as an article with the following messages: "This article needs additional citations for verification." and "This article or section is written like an advertisement.". So why can't Solemio.com also stay...and Match.com International shows the immediate way -direct link- to get to its website in each countryPiccolinno (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC) — Piccolinno (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Not Delete One measure for the same kind of information. Match.com International is an example of how Match.com is online and informs people all over the world about the exact page of their country. I believe that people look for information on Wikipedia when they want to know more about a subject and is not an efficient way to make advertising at any kind. Solemio article must stay online, so that people can read and know more about online dating, a global trend which has been growing globally in the last few years. Cristina PereiraIcetina (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC) — Icetina (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete Spam! And why is it that all the users who voted to keep it have no (or few) edits? Even the bot detected that! Lady Galaxy 19:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Spam for a non notable website. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree Please check references (as well as my other comments) for notability.Vanessa Rôla (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 08:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC) — Vanessa Rôla (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Not Keep block all obvious socks. JuJube (talk) 01:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless someone can cite a reliable source that indicates genuine notability for this article. A reliable source is not optional for Wikipedia articles.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree Once again... How can you say sources are not reliable? All my references are verifiable and reliable. I used mainly Sapo.pt (for those unfamiliar to it, it's "only" the largest Portuguese web portal), Jupiter Research and Pew as references and I strongly recommend you to check http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapo.pt (as well as http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/PT_Multim%C3%A9dia for additional info), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter_Research and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pew_Research_Center. Also, I think all Sapo.pt articles about Solemio confirm its notability, at least on its country. Vanessa Rôla (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 08:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not enough references to establish Solemio's notability (establishing the notability of internet dating is irrelevant). The use of socks is disconcerting too. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree 1. http://tek.sapo.pt/4M1/846869.html; 2. http://sol.sapo.pt/PaginaInicial/Tecnologia/Interior.aspx?content_id=99188, 3. http://tek.sapo.pt/4M0/824475.html. Not enough references to confirm the site's notability? Vanessa Rôla (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are on the same website! If a subject is notable it should have multiple independent references. This does not. Rather that stating "I disagree" with everyone who thinks we should delete the article try finding some other sources. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 11:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree If you had checked the articles I suggested, you would know they are NOT all the same website. Sapo.pt is a web portal that gathers several other sites, namely Sol_(jornal), which is a national newspaper and that I used as reference. Furthermore, since this discussion has stared and to prove I was willing to re-write or edit the text, I already searched and added other references. Vanessa Rôla (talk)
      • Have you read this yet? You'll find that web portals are not generally considered reliable sources. The contents of the pages in question don't support notability only existence (which are not the same thing). You are allowed to improve the article itself by showing what makes it important/significant and supporting this with non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable 3rd party sources. Instead you seem fixated on accusing people of not reading the references in the first place (which is not only not true but, also violates our assume good faith guidelines. Not being able to view the previous version you wrote which was speedily deleted I can't even see if you've attempted to address the original concerns or not. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The page Solemio.com was created on the 25th August by Vanessa Rôla and speedy deleted as A7 and G11 Theresa Knott | The otter sank 11:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I believe the one questioning my intentions is you. If you think that the largest web portal of a country, a national newspaper and two research centers, amongst others, are not reliable then maybe your criteria should be reviewed. The only thing I was focused on was on expressing my opinion about this and defend why I think an article I researched for and wrote should not be deleted. I think this is the purpose of this space, to debate and share opinions. I must say I am truly disappointed. Once again there are other articles about services like this, written the same way, some with less references that did not have any problem and I had problems since day one - my first text was deleted, I've being editing it and asking for advice from wikipedeans but that seemed to be useless. Besides I regret I seemed to have bothered you so much because that was not my intention. Alongside I think it's pointless to keep trying to show the opposite of what you so strongly believe in and from this point on I would only be repeating what I have already said before. Thank you for your time. Vanessa Rôla (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK let's take the web portal out of it. We don't accept them as reliable sources and that is not about to change. As for the newspaper, Can you not link to the article on the newspaper's website? As for two research centers, Which two assert the notability of Solemio? Because I am not seeing it. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC),[reply]
  • That's is the newspaper website that is hosted on Sapo.pt server. The article was published on the newspaper and made available on online version of it. (Regarding the research centers, Pew and Jupiter, they are there to statistically confirm what I've said about online dating in general and that was questioned here before - check first comments). Vanessa Rôla (talk)

• Delete None of the english sources listed assert the notability of Solemio, they assert the notability of Online Dating. Whether the Portuguese sources assert any notability for Solemio is hard to tell since I can't read them. But they seem to be from web portals which have been mentioned above as not reliable sources. Additionally, even if the article was notable, it needs to complete rewrite.Tobyc75 (talk) 22:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete English sources are not about subject. Portuguese sources appear to be rephrasings of the same press release (disclaimer: I don't speak Portuguese, I was using Google Translate) and don't seem to have substantive coverage of the company. Therefore, the article has insurmountable WP:V and WP:RS issues. gnfnrf (talk) 23:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• English references never intended to establish the website's notablility nor have I said that was their purpose. Regarding Google Transle, is commonly known that automatic translators often give wrong, misleading translations and are all translators nightmare. I already said for several times I was willing to edit or rewrite the text, if you think this is the case you're free do give me your input (other than telling me to read all the guidelines, which I had done in the first place). Vanessa Rôla (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay then, I'll be plain: the article needs to make specific claims about why this website is important (it's the best, most popular, first, won awards, etc.) and there need to be several independent sources that support those claims. I don't care what language they are, but if they're not English, might be a good idea to provide a good translation of a few key sentences. DMacks (talk) 21:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your input. I'll edit the article taking into consideration your suggestions and make it available soon. Vanessa Rôla (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 08:42, 1 September 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.