< February 22	February 24 >

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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Highfields School[edit]

Notability issues. Completing process initiated by anon -- no vote/opinion from me. The JPS ^{talk to me} 20:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a British secondary school. Most British secondary schools seem to have pages. If there is suddenly a wikipedia policy not to cover secondary schools then there are a lot of pages to be deleted. All the others in Derbyshire to start with. The anon user who listed this for deletion has only initiated this single AfD - is he saying that all the other comprehensives in England are more notable? If so, then Highfields is notable as the least notable secondary school in the country! I'm not saying it's a good page - far from it - just that it should be improved, not deleted. Rachel Pearce (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ie keep Anon. user with no supporting argument proposes that a secondary school is not notable despite its lack of anonymity, references and history. I have added a more recent academic note and aplogise that the school article seems to focus on discipline minutae. (Please feel free to delate the worst examples!). Oppose as notable. Victuallers (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, despite the issues mentioned, article subject meets the presumption of notability at WP:N. – Zedla (talk) 08:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if going beyond generally believing secondary schools notable, I'd say the racism study helps to confer it in this case. matt91486 (talk) 09:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think that if all un-notable schools were deleted there would be less than a quarter of the good quality, informative articles about schools and that would be a real loss. Highfields (talk) (contribs) 16:54, 27 February 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. Addhoc (talk) 01:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blind as a Bat (song)[edit]

This is complete bollocks --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3 as pure vandalism, so tagged. (P.S. Is it just my computer, or is Wikipedia loading real slow today?) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per G3. Vandalism. Doc Strange (talk) 00:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - Philippe | Talk 05:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes Essentials – Lifehouse[edit]

This "album" is nothing more than a repacking of the bands existing discography - a collection of mp3's with an image attached. I have not been able to find any reviews and I highly doubt any non-trivial coverage in independent sources will be forthcoming for iTunes Essentials. Also listed in this AfD are the following articles:

iTunes Essentials (Tori Amos compilation)
iTunes Essentials - Fall Out Boy
iTunes Essentials - Avril Lavigne скоморохъ 22:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NN. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 23:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

.... does failing being non-notable mean it's notable? —Quasirandom (talk) 23:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 02:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the artists are notable. Can these be mentioned in their respective articles, but there's nothing notable about these. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 02:01, 24 February 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 00:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cowdenpark House[edit]

~~Article fails WP:N, as it does not assert why it is significant, and references aren't exactly references, they seem more like unverifiable claims. <3 bunny 22:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Follow-up. I'm going to remove the nomination, but I realise it would also be ideal for it to be moved to its real name, so I'm going to suggest a pagemove as well. <3 bunny 17:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. No need to wait for the end of the AfD, as far as I'm concerned. Besides, it's looking like a WP:SNOWBALL. Pburka (talk) 03:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination. With that cleared up, I don't think there is a need for the nomination anymore. <3 bunny 04:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Sorry, I am new to wikipedia and do not fully understand it yet. Please note that I have taken the refrences part out of the article. I apologize as it is the first article I have written.

Thanks --L-scottie--L-scottie (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable (possibly?) and unsourced. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 23:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Not notable. DB-Bio was declined since it was a building. Sounds like a loophole in CSD as there seems no notability inclusion for buildings.~~ Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 23:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Switched to Keep par article additions. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 09:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep Delete as non-existent (without space too) TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 02:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC) Keep per recent editions but second the page move, it needs to be under its proper name. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but please don't be discouraged. This article is being deleted because there is nothing in the article which says why this house is notable. What's special about it? What makes it important? Pburka (talk) 02:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep in light of Eastmain's additions. Are Class C buildings notable, though? It's the lowest class of listing in Scotland. Pburka (talk) 05:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a reference which confirms that it is a Class C(s) listed building (as address: "Stirling Road, Cowden Park"), as well as information from the Directory of Scottish Architecture. --Eastmain (talk) 03:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Cowdenpark House is a listed building which removes any doubt about notability. Class C, whilst the lowest in the Scottish scheme is not a classification handed out willy nilly to any old pile of bricks. nancy ^(talk) 09:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the proper name seems to be Cowden Park House - suggest a page move if this AfD results in a keep. nancy ^(talk) 09:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - listed historic building. References are adequate to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MariposaHD[edit]

Article about non-notable internet show with heavy COI edits. User:MariposaHD has an edit history showing that they have gone through related articles and inserted references to the show. Ideally these should be reverted also. While there are hits on Google, most are sites pointing to torrents to download the show. I was not able to find references that could be used as reviews or other noteworthy coverage. Ham Pastrami (talk) 05:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I contributed this article and I have no relation to the show. Also, others have edited it as well. It is significant for various reasons, including its distribution method and notability. I do NOT believe it should be deleted. Seyon —Preceding comment was added at 15:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide reliable sources to confirm your assertion? Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Don't see how this passes WP:WEB. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (Note: I tried adding a comment before, but I think it didn't get through, so I'll write it again. Sorry if it shows up a second time.) Well, I know about the show, but when I decided to look up more info (like where they shoot) I went to look here. Pleased to find an article here, but unhappy to see a deletion proposal. See, I think the article is not "non-notable". If said user went for advertising on other pages it is regrettable, but shouldn't have any relevance about wether to keep this article or not. rotane (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 22:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ad-like. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 23:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:RS PKT (talk) 00:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources do not establish notability —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.210.172 (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:Note an article about a different individual has now been moved to this name.--Doc^g 10:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Wheeler[edit]

AfDs for this article:

My rationale: By all accounts Alison is a very nice person. But I am convinced that she does not meet notability guidelines and so this article can be classed as vanity. But, as always on this wonderful site, it is for the entire community to decide. User:Terrence Wrist [1] —Random832 22:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to be notable enough per WP:BIO. Searches for her name plus Wikipedia, plus Liberal Democrats, plus LGBT, plus gay, plus lesbian, plus Brazen Radio, and finally plus wikimedia appear to turn up insufficient sourcing for everything she may be notable for that is listed in her article from reliable third-party sourcing. As her former status (she appears to have resigned?) on an inactive/seperate fork of the Wikimedia project (their page on Meta the last I looked was largely idle for some time) is no factor towards figuring notability, unfortunate Delete. Lawrence § t/e 22:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - She tendered her resignation as part of a dispute, I believe, but it was not accepted and she is still with the Board. Contrary to the comment below, it isn't "some minor uk based wikipedia project" it is the branch of Wikimedia in the United Kingdom. I'm not saying this is categorically enough to establish notability, it may not be. Avruch^T 01:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Unless we modified our notability guidelins to say an affiliation with Wikimedia could be considered a factor to establish notability, it wouldn't be. It's just a job or volunteer role, which in and of itself is not anything special for determining notability. Like being a CEO of a corporation--in and of itself, even if the firm is notable, being in charge of it is not automatically. Lawrence § t/e 22:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to be have been involved with some minor (and it appears to be defunct or inactive) uk based wikipedia project, not notable. --Fredrick day (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable person. Majorly (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 23:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A nice, but not a notable person. -- Barliner talk 23:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, founder of several notable organisations. I have no idea whether she is nice or nasty, and don't see the relevance. However, she didn't write this article, so accusations of vanity are misdirected.-gadfium 01:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete she does sound really nice. But because she's involved with wikipedia, doesn't mean we can have an article on this non-notable lady, or we should really allow newcomers to have the articles they want for all their mates, bands etc. The sources for this article are mostly a mailing list.:)Special Random (Merkinsmum) 01:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable accomplishments, but additional references would be helpful. --Eastmain (talk) 01:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We should be prejudiced neither for or against people involved with the encyclopedia. Head of a notable organisation.DGG (talk) 02:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources for article include 1)her website 2) a mailing list. Presently there are no reliable sources for an article about the subject. The appearance of the BBC article in the external links section seems to be nearly a non-sequitor, with the subject apparently commenting on beards and sandals. ("I think that is an outdated image. It was very true back in the Liberal days when the beard and sandals quota was very high.") Seriously, read it... daveh4h 02:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No well-referenced claims of notability that I can see. --John (talk) 02:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with no accusations of vanity and no prejudice against recreation if notability increases. At the present time, this fairly high-profile (within the community) article has nowhere near the quantity of required coverage by reliable, third party sources. That an article could undergo this much scrutiny and remain so unreferenced seems to me an indicator of insufficient notability. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability is not clearly established here. I'm willing to change my vote if one decent source can be found (not her website or a mailing list) verifying that she has even the most marginal claim to notability. Everyking (talk) 04:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Here's a decent source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2006/jun/18/wikipedia.news The Observer, Sunday June 18 2006. "Wikipedia fights off cyber vandals", by Lorna Martin --Eastmain (talk) 08:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That the kind of incidental mention that 100s of people here have got when the papers want an editor to talk about something - nothing particular notable about it. --Fredrick day (talk) 09:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely NN. Viridae ^Talk 08:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy DeleteDefinitely non-notable. Cannot believe this article was created in the first place, let alone survived an initial AFD. 152.78.23.174 (talk) 13:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. Would reconsider if additional sources were (properly and fully) cited. --ElKevbo (talk) 14:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (just) Whilst the above points are valid, she does appear to be notable enough, being involved in a number of different organisations. Also, if an important member of WikiMedia isn't notable, who is? Weebiloobil (talk) 18:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't see "important member of WikiMedia" in our notability guidelines. Further, I believe that we should be extra cautious when judging the notability of such persons as (a) we're probably biased in such a judgement and (b) we should always strive to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. --ElKevbo (talk) 19:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems notable enough to me. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn-bio. Questionable as speedy, but not notable enough for me in an AfD. Prodego ^talk 22:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- fails to meet notability guideline. I spent 20 minutes looking for sources using Google News' archive search and came up with nothing besides the passing mention cited in the article. --A. B. ^(talk) 22:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I can't see how WP:GOOGLEHITS would take precendence secondary sources, which form the basis for this article. MrPrada (talk) 05:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Articles for deletion/Alison Wheeler. There are enough separate achievements here, plus primary and secondary sources, to improve this article. MrPrada (talk) 05:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. Way short of third party sources. Possibility of future notability, but not there yet. Sperril (talk) 08:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Nothing notable about being a volunteer for the wikimedia project. Fails WP:BIO. Is there really anything more to say? 194.189.32.65 (talk) 08:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Having interacted with Alison on the project and found her to be a good person I am predisposed to saying Keep, and I'm looking for reasons to say so. A mention in the Guardian is fairly good, however she is used a source for an article on Wikipedia, and is not the focus of the report. Her status as source is that she is chair of Wikimedia UK, a Wikimedia Foundation organisation which doesn't get an article on Wikipedia, simply a redirect. So it's a source, along with the BBC one, that affirms she exists, but it doesn't support notability. Notability appears to be asserted within the article itself by the number of organisations Alison is associated with, and her status within those organisations. She pops up in various places, and it might be a fair question that somebody may ask - who is this Alison Wheeler? So, even though peripherally mentioned, does the accumulation of references and organisations in the article give just enough justification? SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 17:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on comment. I can't tell you how to think, or how to vote. But in my view that Alison is a good person (hey, all lib dems are good people, that's why they've no chance of getting power :P) shouldn't really count one way or the other. Neither would I place a vote and look for reasons using policy - I'd look at policy (including, btw, WP:IAR) and use that to shape my vote. But I'm not a "proper" Wikipedian, and of course YMMV. Terrence Wrist (talk) 17:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry - it's not uncommon for me not to make myself clear. I'm really good at explaining other things and other people, but hopeless at explaining myself! The opening sentence of my comment was me saying that I am human, and that certain things will influence me in a certain direction. I was declaring that I have encountered this person, and so I have a natural tendency to be favourable. Having said that, I then describe one of the stronger references and say that I found that reference to be wanting. To put that more clearly: "Even though I'd prefer to keep the Alison Wheeler article, and so therefore I am looking to give the benefit of the doubt to the material and the references, I find even the strongest reference in the article to not support the notability of the subject." I then look at the accumulation of material in the article and ask if people feel that would be enough to justify notability. If we are looking strictly at policy then the article would stand, because Alison Wheeler is verifiable in several reliable sources. But we are not looking at policy we are looking at community consensus on notability. It's a slightly different thing. Community consensus is arrived at via discussions on pages like this one. The Notability (people) guideline is informed by and updated by what happens in arenas like this AfD. People may consult the guidelines for assistance in consensus, but the guidelines themselves do not decide what happens here - consensus does. As such, asking the question, does an accumulation of mentions in reliable sources, and an involvement - often at a significant level - in a number of notable or semi-notable organisations make a person notable enough for a Wiki article, is - I feel - appropriate. How people respond to that question may have an impact on me deciding to !vote, and which way I !vote, but the main reason for asking the question was to raise the question and the issue attached to it. I thought people may reflect on it, and the closing admin may consider it. I do not have have to actually !vote to make a contribution to this discussion. I tend to think of AfD as Articles for Discussion rather than Articles for Deletion. I hope that helps! SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 19:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
very weak keep Her work in various orgnizations appears to be arguably notable and some of the coverage (such as the BBC article) gives more details. She seems to just not pass BIO but I would be surprised if she didn't pass it soon enough. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC) Changing opinion to delete if she does end up meeting BIO at some point we can recreate it then. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if she passed WP:BIO later fine, but for now not.--Doc^g 22:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete As a (minor) contributor to the article, looking over it again, I can't see how non-public-facing roles in various small organisations and some cursory mentions in the press can make someone notable. I and many other editors could probably create articles on themselves based on such weak criteria, and I'm afraid keeping this article could set a precedent that may open the floodgates to articles being written on every editor, their grandma and their pet dog based on a few minor references like a picture once in the local paper and being mentioned in an Internet discussion. —Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _talk _contrib 03:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Poor sources, poor notability, COI concerns, BLP concerns - BLP says delete questionable claims, and I question the unsourced claims that say nice things about her; even if true are they balanced, do they present a truly representative portrait, in short is the article truly NPOV? I doubt it. And if we were to create a truly NPOV article, she might ask to delete it based on her lack of notability. Delete. Delete. Delete. WAS 4.250 (talk) 08:07, 27 February 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. Simply being a finalist for an industry award does not demonstrate sufficient notability. - Philippe | Talk 05:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concord Mall (Indiana)[edit]

Delete no sources to indicate that this mall is notable, WP:N, WP:CORP Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable mall. It's smaller than a super-regional, and it's not the subject of any reliable sources. (Plus, whoever wrote the page left out Elder-Beerman as an anchor store.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Multiple Finalist for a MAXI. Multiple news stories re: its sale & redevelopment, including old ownership info (prior to Simon buying into Kravco Simon). I'll work them into the article later this evening. (see the Talk Page for it all). Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 05:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unnotable mall. Eusebeus (talk) 00:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 13:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monaken Lodge[edit]

Non-notable lodge. First person narrative. Corvus cornix_talk 03:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only news hits are about people involved, not the Lodge itself. Travellingcari (talk) 04:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep award winning group (now Cited). I tend to think Boy Scouts would find it notable. I also think it should be allowed to be around for more than 1 minute before being AfD'd. POV is an edit issue, not a reason for deletion. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 06:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 22:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG. We have Order of the Arrow, but we don't even have articles on scouting units below the national level, e.g. Scouting in the United States. As to the claim of notability, the awards it has won are not independent of scouting. --Dhartung | Talk 22:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you saying that WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNOTEXIST, so this shouldn't ? The medal not independant of scouting mention is intresting, should we also not mention the VC in relation to any soilders? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exit2DOS2000 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dhartung. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 23:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, of extremely local interest only. There is the whole rest of the Internet to post stuff like this on, you know... Blast Ulna (talk) 12:26, 25 February 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. Chetblong^{T C} 00:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KitaKon[edit]

Delete. No evidence of notability for a convention that was attended by 112 people. KitaKon results in about 700 hits, 107 of them "unique". Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 22:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NN CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 22:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable third-party sources available to presume notability. The Google search I conduced on "Kita-Kon Canada -wikipedia -blog -forum" turned up 33 hits. --Farix (Talk) 23:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Farix (Talk) 23:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable anime convention with no reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until they start pulling in some significant attendance numbers - at least 500. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:19, 28 February 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 nom withdrawn. Addhoc (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Local United Network to Combat Hunger[edit]

Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. Reference have been given now and notability established by that. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:02, 24 February 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. -- Longhair\^talk 01:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Valley Cricket Association[edit]

Delete. Local cricket competition, no assertion of notability and no independent sources cited. Fails WP:ORG. Stephen Turner (Talk) 22:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.
Delete - Sorry but fails WP:ORG and is the feeder for articles listed here which also fail.--VS ^talk 01:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing of note which distinguishes this from other local sporting competitions Murtoa (talk) 11:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG Eusebeus (talk) 00:13, 29 February 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 - Philippe | Talk 05:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arcadia Molyneaux[edit]

This fashion model seems entirely nn. Ghits: in English, French and Spanish are of the forum, naked pics spam and occasional NSFW titles. However I find no verifiable information on this model from which to source this article. I don't find any text period, but the pics must have come from somewhere. Travellingcari (talk) 06:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 22:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now, no sources. If it is reposted with sources, then don't use the db-repost tag on it. Blast Ulna (talk) 12:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - Philippe | Talk 05:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zygon: When being you just isn't enough[edit]

Non notable unreleased spin-off. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Prod was removed by an anon without comment. Only a single non Wikipedia Google hit. J Milburn (talk) 14:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zygon: When Being Me Is Not Enough from the same author, which was deleted. J Milburn (talk) 14:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zygon has more than one google hit- BBV Online, Galaxy 4, Tardis Libary. The information i have scraped from these sources and other material. Author CHUNKI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CHUNKI (talk • contribs) 14:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All I found was the stuff here, none of which is a reliable source for the purposes of determining notability. J Milburn (talk) 14:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, try www.thecameraman.tv/Latest.htm and The Tardis Libary, another source is the 2005 SFX magazine Doctor Who special, which includes an interview with producer Bill Baggs. CHUNKI.

Could you please cite those sources in the article using the citation templates? That would vastly improve the article. J Milburn (talk) 15:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nomination. Eusebeus (talk) 00:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 13:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eesa[edit]

Non-notable student organization. Fails WP:N. Nv8200p talk 16:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

E.E.S.A. is a notable student association, being that every member of the unbc/ubc environmental engineering program must be a member. In addition, EESA (and therefore the unbc environmental engineers) are hosting the next WESST conference. They also atteneded CFES congress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.181.168.189 (talk) 05:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NN. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, A7. Stephen Turner (Talk) 22:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 02:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG. Student organizations that exist at a single school are generally non-notable. In addition, the "history" section of this article has been vandalized several times, yet there is no "original" version in the article history that can be taken seriously; it was apparently never accurate to start with. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the article may fall (barely) within WP:ORG but needs major wikification. It seems more like a MySpace page with its "notable" figures drinking beer from plastic cups. If someone with an interest can transform it into an encyclopedia article with proper references and third-party (such as news reports etc.) citations, I will gladly change my stance to Keep!--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 05:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - Philippe | Talk

Monaco Film Premiere[edit]

As the article states, there are roughly 1,900 film festivals during the year and there doesn't appear to be anything notable about this one with which to expand the article. Ghits are blogs, forum threads talking about the films themselves, but nothing notable about the festival. I had speedied this as an advert for the festival but it was removed without comment. So I'm bringing it here Travellingcari (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it's probably notable and sourceable. Apparently Charlize Theron "opened" it last time, which means it will have news coverage. People are very interested in these kinds of events (interest translates to notability in some way). But it's hard to find sources given a couple things - language issues in searching google, and some question about the name. This seems to be identical to the "Monaco Charity Film Festival", which has a few hits such as [2] and [3], and no doubt with more searching some more reliable ones are out there.Wikidemo (talk) 18:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply No question it was poorly named here, so it will have to be moved if it's deemed notable. I searched under Monaco Charity Film Festival in English, French and Italian due to the prevalence of all three and came up with nothing from reliable sources, hence the nomination. If someone can find the sources, that's wonderful but they appear to be hiding well. Travellingcari (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me neither, which is why I said "comment" rather than "keep." If nobody turns up with any better sources after a while, I'm in agreement that the article is deletable. Wikidemo (talk) 00:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until the day sources are found. Blast Ulna (talk) 12:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Human Design System[edit]

I don't know whether this 'system' is notable enough for an article. I've tried tagging it for innappropriate tone, being unreferenced and notability, but these are just removed by what appears to be a SPA. So I'm sending it to AfD to get a community view on its encyclopedic merit or not. Polly (Parrot) 21:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mea Culpa! I was in the midst of this edit and did not recognize the 'tagging' during the editing. I have references, and would add them, but this blew up in the middle of what I was doing. As for the tone, it seems the primary objection is references. Would adding references 'save' this? The article has permission from the copyright holder (not me) for free access and reprint of the contents, even the screenshots.
If you are not familiar with Human Design, then I'm not sure that you are actually qualified as to the merit of including the topic or not, in regards to notability. I believe if you "google" Human Design System, you will see there are 1000's of websites, and a wide community world wide. This article does not promote any particular person, business, or website, and is an attempt to give a neutral, yet complete picture of the current Human Design community - by including 'licensed' professional designations, and 'licensed' services - there is an attempt to help people avoid scams and false representation about Human Design.Secretofbeingyou (talk) 19:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)User talk:secretofbeingyou\[reply]

This seems to be a commercial website, promoting a commercial software package and listing perhaps all books that the mentor of this system has published.
I do not understand the use of the expression "maps each individual’s unique genetic highlighting" in this article. Mapping genetic highlights or characteristics has absolutely nothing to do with human design. Genetic mapping is a hard, labour intensive, time and resource consuming process done by geneticists/molecular biologists that has no connection with whatever may be the output of the human design system. And why would the word genetic be used here anyway? Please explain us what is your understanding of genetics and how does it relate to human design.
It would be of interest for the person who created the system to thoroughly explain what is the reliability of each of the decisions the algorithms take while creating the bodygraph, that is, what's the probability of a center or gate/channel decision being right, regardless of its meaning? 50%? More? Less?
--Mfc10 (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "trained" in Human Design, but I have read a few books on it, and have played around with it. I would describe it as a form of astrology. I have found it useful for understanding the personalities and talents of the people around me. So I would recommend that the Human Design entry not be deleted. However, this entry is VERY BADLY WRITTEN: it is disorganized, verbose, and contains wild speculation. Best to reduce the length of this article to a few paragraphs, list relevant websites for additional information, and present Human Design as a tentative system for understanding human behavior and destiny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Professor6405 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertising for a commercial product of unestablished notability. Oh, and every reference to a supposedly scientific subject is total gibberish. Anville (talk) 17:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to history of chocolate --Step hen 00:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of Chocolate[edit]

This article is an abbreviated fork of history of chocolate. John254 21:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to history of chocolate. Victao lopes (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge are you kidding? WLU (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to history of chocolate, which basically says the same things in a better form Doc Strange (talk) 21:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - This is ridiculous. I've boldly redirected the page. WLU (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - And I've undone that. Please, give it some time. When this AfD is closed, then we'll redirect. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - to . CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 22:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to history of chocolate (he he, I don't care if the term doesn't make sense), --brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy (as possible) redirect to history of chocolate. This article has neither much in way of current content nor the potential to contain something that cannot be put into the history of chocolate article instead. Eldar (talk) 00:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the origin of chocolate belongs in the history page. Certainly Chocolate is a subject that warrants coverage, and given the extensive possibilities, a history sub-page is reasonable. However, I do not see that there is a need for a further division of such, and given the limited content, I support deletion. HOWEVER, in the event of communicating with what seems to be a new user, I suggest communicating with them more directly about the issue instead of slapping a template at them next time. I don't see a need for a redirect, but I don't object to one either. Also, I would suggest some of the prior commenters to consider whether they might have made remarks that are a tad abrasive? The editor involved has about a half a dozen edits, none of which are vandalism, and some of the comments may come across as hostile. I don't think anybody wants to drive off any newbies, but being circumspect would help a lot. FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 00:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about all the confusion, I am new user and I'm not exactly sure how to do things on Wikipedia, but for a project my professor wanted us to create a new entry in Wikipedia and see how it changes from when we first posted it to the end of the semester. I apologize if this is not how things are done, I am just trying to follow the directions of what my professor has told me.

Cfahland (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment: That's too bad. It probably means there are more bad articles to come...=/ Victao lopes (talk) 23:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, deleting an article is also a sort of change, and this discussion a learning experience. I hope your professor would appreciate this outcome too, and maybe introduce "article audience analysis" to the course next time such a project is assigned. Eldar (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You should also inform your professor that wikipedia is not a test subject for college classes. It should not be used for class projects. Maybe if the assignment was to add an article from the wanted list for something that was notable then we could have a different view. Getting articles written and correctly sourced would be a reasonable college assignment that might not cause problems. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:45, 27 February 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meathods of free music[edit]

This article is a low-quality fork of file sharing. John254 21:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. It also looks like a personal essay. Victao lopes (talk) 21:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is no place for personal essays, also what is a "meathod"? Doc Strange (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not an encyclopedia article. Maxa megalon 2000 06:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What is a "meathod", anyway? --Itub (talk) 09:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as horrible OR. tomasz. 14:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also thinking this could be an advert as it was created by a single-use account and promotes (and likes to the website dvdvideosoft.com). Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}_{Strange Frequencies} 16:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - Philippe | Talk 05:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bhiku Mhatre[edit]

Template:FICTWARN removed by User:Jerry; not applicable; this is not a fictional character or episode of a television series, it is a fictional character in a movie.

Delete explicitly fails WP:FICT. I have move some information in the main article Satya (film). Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jj137 (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ((FICTWARN)) applies. --Eastmain (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge more to Satya (film) ~~once the injunction is over.~~ One-time movie characters are rarely notable, and this article does not even have a single (secondary) source to demonstrate notability. – sgeureka ^t•c 02:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Injunction seems to only refer to TV characters. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FICT - clearly no assertion of notability. Eusebeus (talk) 00:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - Philippe | Talk 05:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Midstate Regional Library[edit]

No evidence of any notability for this library. A google search is problematic due to the number of library records that show up in Google but there's nothing about the library per Wikipedia:CORP#Non-commercial_organizations, which states: Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found. Travellingcari (talk) 03:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to meet WP:N and per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian Valley Public Library which was an article on what looks like a similar library. --Nick Dowling (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jj137 (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This library is regional (within Vermont) rather than local (serving only a single municipality). --Eastmain (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment degree of locality doesn't matter, it's still relatively local in scope and of no notability. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 02:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Vermont Department of Libraries and then rewrite to cover the new scope. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:47, 27 February 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Denman[edit]

It has been tagged for cleanup and tagged for having no references at all since June 2007. There has been no effort to rectify this as far as I can see. The page consists basically of three lines of unreferenced text followed by three lengthy sections of links to Denman's films and other articles. Capitana (talk) 13:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support deletion as the nominator Capitana (talk) 13:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to have had billed roles in the National Lampoon Dorm Daze series. Catchpole (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reply - I'm not disputing who the guy is but it doesn't seem anyone is interested in rectifying the reference situation. I am not really interested in the subject so there's little point in me trying to fix the article. I will remove the nomination if someone offers to fix the article up though. --Capitana (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jj137 (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - Having had tags for a long time is not a valid reason for deletion. matt91486 (talk) 23:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. matt91486 (talk) 23:17, 23 February 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, but I have no objection to someone creating a redirect. - Philippe | Talk 05:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bush regime[edit]

Been around since 2003, but it seems like cruft, and a non-notable two-word combination. Ghits mean nothing really, and are irrelevant here. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ATTACK and WP:SOAP. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although I would not regard the wording of the article as reflective of its author's opinion on George W. Bush, there is nothing worth keeping in the article. The number of ghits on a word sequence can be relevant in AfD discussions, but if that number is by itself a subject's main claim to notability... --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 21:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Let's see, WP:SOAP, WP:ATTACK, what else.... CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The word "regime" is a widely-used alternative to "administration", e.g. "Roosevelt regime", "Nixon regime", It means either the term of office ("at the start of the Lincoln regime") or the coterie of people in charge of policy ("the Johnson regime was determined to pass civil rights"). It is sometimes used to give a negative connotation, but by no means universally. --Dhartung | Talk 22:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bush administration as it's conceivable that someone would type this phrase into the search box. Not enough here for an article of its own. I suppose it could also be redirected to Criticism of George W. Bush but that might violate the principle of least surprise. *** Crotalus *** 10:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Crotalus. Linguistically the term "regime" is neutral, but in practice it has a negative flavor to it. But it is not an "attack" phrase so severe that it outdoes the usefulness of a redirect for a plausible search term. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Personally, I believe "regime" can be used in the title of an article, but administration is the praxis regarding US governments.--Aldux (talk) 13:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Criticism of George W. Bush. This sounds like the best bet to keep in flow with the connotation while maintaining neutrality.Shaliya waya (talk) 16:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Redirect would fail WP:SOAP, WP:ATTACK, etc. Where are the primary and secondary sources? Interestingly, the only reference is WP:GOOGLEHITS. I'd expect that in the AfD, not in the article itself. MrPrada (talk) 05:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge This article is not an attack, but rather a description of the term. Two external links are provided, showing where the term has been used.Hellno2 (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - Philippe | Talk 05:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Comfort (2000 album)[edit]

Obscure album by a band with no article led by a guy who's the cousin of the much more famous Ronnie (and Donnie and Johnny) Van Zant(s). No sources, prod removed by an anon who also added some uncited claims to assert notability. Cúchullain ^t/c 17:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search for sources turned up nothing of note for Jimmie Van Zant or Jimmie Van Zant Band -- no major label albums, chart success, or anything else -- therefore, he and his band would fail WP:MUSIC. And if an artist fails WP:MUSIC, so do the artist's albums. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added Jimmie Van Zant to the discussion, since he seems to be notable only for being related to the Van Zants of Skynyrd fame. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per TPH. Eusebeus (talk) 00:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - Philippe | Talk 05:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renato Romano[edit]

Looks to me like he probably doesn't meet WP:BIO as an actor, which seems to be his most notable profession. Most notable film was a minor role in The Italian Job. Jfire (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN actor, much of the article makes no sense (active in the resistence as a toddler?). Bearian (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point re the resistance needs more information. I understand that in some cases, in Belgium at least, children were part of the resistance as they could go places adults could not. I disagree that "much of the article makes no sense." It is very sketchy, I would say. Wanderer57 (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 36 credits on IMDB, many of them in the top 3-6 credits. He's not a star, but he is notable. Pburka (talk) 02:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. Eusebeus (talk) 00:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Already moved to Bat-and-ball games --Step hen 02:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Safe haven games[edit]

WP:NEO, WP:OR; I see no use of this term outside of Wikipedia ( [4] ). If somebody will find me a citation that this isn't someone's invention, from a reliable source, please add it to the page. Quentin Smith 20:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move These are Ball and bat games just like the article says itself and so just retitle the article. Other types of safe haven games such as British Bulldog are not included and so this title is not appropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:28, 23 February 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.

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

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. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 19:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dream, Extinguished[edit]

Per WP:MUSIC, unreleased albums are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. The album was delayed, not shelved. The person who typed the article had the wrong information, as the album is in the All Music Guide database with a link to iTunes. DrinkBoff (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Either way, it's an unreleased album, subject to deletion as explained in the nom ("delayed" = not released = "unreleased"). - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's my understanding that the album has been released. It was delayed, but now has a link to All Music Guide with an additional link to iTunes. DrinkBoff (talk) 23:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Do you have a link? http://www.dannyswain.com/ doesn't list this album in his discography and, under "store", offers streaming snippets of what it calls this "never-released instrumental ablum". - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You are right, I couldn't find an iTunes link either and his site does list it as "unreleased". Sorry about that! Delete per nom. DrinkBoff (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 19:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now per nom, with no prejudice to recreation when and if the album is actually released, as at that point it probably will pass WP:MUSIC. Mr Senseless (talk) 20:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anxiety (album)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Properly creating 2nd nom for User:Mdsummermsw, who relisted 2006 discussion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreleased albums aren't generally notable; this one doesn't seem to be the subject of any reliable sources. (This !vote is in no way biased by the fact that I completed the nom for another user.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —86.149.53.196 (talk) 08:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MUSIC, WP:N, etc. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per A7. jj137 (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Berman (AR)[edit]

Non-notable individual. Flash94 (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No assertion of notability, lacks sources, no reason whatsoever this needs to go through AFD. Mr Senseless (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I almost never say this once something has reached Afd, but it seems to be obvious this time..DGG (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, as notability has not been demonstrated - Philippe | Talk 05:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

D-Day: Normandy[edit]

No independent, reliable, substantial coverage, so I don't think it passes notability guidelines (WP:N). There are two sites likely to have coverage (and these are linked on the article): ModDB and PlanetQuake both of which only have summaries and press releases. Marasmusine (talk) 09:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine (talk) 09:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found an article in a paper that mentions it[5]. // Liftarn (talk)
Weak keep. The article above makes it notable, however it need more references. --MrStalker ^(talk) 08:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless more sources are provided. One newpaper article doesn't reach the signifact coverage standard that WP:N requires. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If kept, the title should be changed to include "(game)". The current article name invites confusion with the invasion of Normandy, June 1944 and is offensive, IMHO. Wanderer57 (talk) 17:28, 28 February 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 00:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Baumann (entrepreneur)[edit]

Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep inadequate article, but he in fact has about 50 peer-reviewed papers -- most are conferences rather than journals, but that's as customary for the subject. [6],DGG (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Inadequate article but there appears to be at least adequate notability. Hopefully someone will do the work required. Stormbay (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has been brought to a highly acceptable level. Langec (talk) 14:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - Philippe | Talk 05:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hipersonica[edit]

Delete Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Google news search shows no hint [7]. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone who knows Spanish see if these Spanish lanaguage sources establish notability?--brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete failing the appearance of some sources supporting notability. --Stormbay (talk) 03:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Maritime and Coastguard Agency - Philippe | Talk 05:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hemsby Inshore Lifeboat[edit]

Delete Fails WP:N. Google news search shows no ghit [8], Google search shows 13 ghits [9], but do not show third party reliable source with significat coverage on the subject. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Maritime and Coastguard Agency. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The total lack of sources keeps me from a merge option. If sources show some minor importance, the article could be merged as above. --Stormbay (talk) 03:11, 26 February 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 00:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Grossman[edit]

Delete Political activist and commentator, no sign of notability. Fails WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article is on life support, which was why I flagged it for help from an expert. There is significant RS coverage but I'm not familiar enough with the topic to work on it. Couple false + here but he's been the subject of and cited in a number of books. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 20:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Travelling, crosses the notability threshold. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than adequate amount of coverage for multiple events in his career, included the NYT and the CSM as well as the Boston Globe. Why didn't the nom think to even check in google/Google News?DGG (talk) 00:25, 24 February 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 - Philippe | Talk 05:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Active Citizens Transform[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Delete fails WP:ORG. No hint in Google news search [10]. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like a flash-in-a-pan organazation that has no long-term notability. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You need to click on "all dates" when you do a Google News search. Plenty of reliable sources there, two of which are already in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Minimum notability exists but work required. --Stormbay (talk) 23:00, 24 February 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Mehigan[edit]

Leesome (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This bio fails to qualify under the guidelines [11]. It appears to be generated by the author himself, who has published one small book of poetry with one small press. The book and its author have failed to achieve any degree of notability that would justify an article. Leesome (talk) 19:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is some claim to notability there, but not enough per WP:BIO. One book of poetry isn't much. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. gets a fair amount of ghits, but no signifacant coverage by reliable secondary sources. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 23:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A single book of poetry does not equal "notable." Chimpgurl (talk) 19:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How many books did Thomas Chatterton write? --Paularblaster (talk) 21:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to delete! I wrote the following at Leesome's user page: I'm the subject, but not the author, of the article, Joshua Mehigan. It may be of use to you to have it confirmed that the article would have to have been written by someone who knows me personally. (The contemporary poetry world is tiny.) I'm probably aware of everything that's been published about me, and nothing's ever said who my teachers were. I'm certainly content to have the article deleted! There are great writers with no entry whatsoever. I have to add that it's mortifying to have it suggested in a link from the article that I posted it. Joshua Mehigan jmehigan@earthlink.net Jmehigan1 (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
!!! Well--I can imagine my input could be considered invalid, but I wanted to mention something else. It may be unbecoming to write it, but I don't know who else would. I was looking through the Wikipedia criteria for "notability," and discovered that I think I may actually meet them. That is, I've "been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" by good magazines and in legit critical books. It's just a point of pride, since I stand accused of not being notable! Ha. All the same, I don't feel notable, so it's a technicality, I guess. I can't imagine anyone really visits the article.Jmehigan1 (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above two posts seem more evidence that this person authored his own entry and therefore the entry should be deleted. Chimpgurl (talk)
Not sure what I can say to that sort of reasoning. My second post was (mainly) supposed to be funny. As I said, please feel free to delete . . . Jmehigan1 (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - Philippe | Talk 05:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extremeskins[edit]

Delete Fails WP:N. Only 5 ghits in Google news search [12] Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Major trim (remove unnotable advert-like info) and Merge into Washington Redskins. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject is non notable. A possible one line mention in the Redskin article might be appropriate. --Stormbay (talk) 02:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus, default to keep

Justifiable Insurrection[edit]

neologism. Google search in quotes "justifiable insurrection" shows 67 ghits, none of which are related to the topic at hand. Author has been using the term on the Supreme Court of the United States article to push a POV criticizing the court, replete with weasel words.

Refs cited in the article do nothing to support the term "justifiable insurrection", without significant original research and synthesis. WP:NOT for Essays. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This could be legitimate, or at the very least worthy of a stub. With that being said, needs some major clean up, more sources, and anything that is remotely close to OR or POV needs to be removed. If anything is left, then keep. Mr Senseless (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swatjester may have some sort of problem using Google. I typed in "justifiable insurrection" (without the quotation marks) and nine of the first ten entries were very much related to the topic at hand. Martel,C (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swatjester is concerned (if I understand him correctly) that the title of the article, "Justifiable Insurrection" is OR or POV because the citations do not use that particular term. I checked another wikipedia site, Separation of church and state and looked at the 34 citations in the "References" section. Not one of the 34 endnotes uses the term indicated in the article's title. So what? Does s.j. conclude that both articles are ipso facto OR? Martel,C (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swatjester is not himself providing support for his accusations. Perhaps he would be willing to provide a few cases in point when he asserts that the U.S. Supreme Court article -- subsection on judicial usurpation -- is "replete with weasel words." Also, as per the same article, I wonder what s.j. is referring to when he asserts use of the term (justifiable insurrection?) "to push a POV criticizing the court?" I could find no use whatsoever of this term at that location. Martel,C (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW and WP:NOT. Nick Dowling (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How to make a drum solo[edit]

Contested prod. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide.

Delete. Snowball? Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 19:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Not a how-to guide, and it barely tells me enough to be useful. —C.Fred (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 19:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete par WP:Not, guidebook section Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 19:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I have only one thing to say to this... Wikipedia is not a method book. Mr Senseless (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per WP:NOT#HOWTO Doc Strange (talk) 20:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#HOWTO and WP:NOT#OR. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - Philippe | Talk 05:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Brown Vestey[edit]

Originally speedy deletion tagged as an attack piece. Not sure that the article is not salvageable despite the verifiability, reliable sources problem and the BLP in some versions. Bringing it here for others to look at. Dlohcierekim 18:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PSThe anon who tagged it for CSD says they were requested to have the article deleted by the subject. Dlohcierekim 19:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Even the longer versions in the history make little claim to notability other than that he inherited a lot of money. Pburka (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E, especially in light of the WP:BLP concerns outlined above. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Mark Brown (something). I've formatted the sources in the article, and removed the ones that are only passing mentions, but there's certainly enough left to demonstrate notability and to provide verifiable information on which to rebuild the article. He is not notable simply for his inheritance, but for being regarded as one of the "most notorious anarchists in Europe", according to the Evening Standard source. The article should be moved to the correct name. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KeepProbobaly should rename it as above - I used Vestey to link it to the family which adds notability. Paki.tv (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - Philippe | Talk 05:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World Without Cancer[edit]

Micro-stub that is empty, unsourced, and making no claims of notability whatsover, by an author just nuked at AFD -- and yet, somehow, isn't a speedy candidate. Calton | Talk 18:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete A Google search returns over 2 million hits, but most of the few I checked are book reviews, the author's website, or places like amazon.com. Unless a claim to notability can be made, and some good independent sources can be found, then delete. Mr Senseless (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Book reviews can be used to establish notability if there are enough of them (2-3) by reliable sources (say, if the book was reviewed in the New York Times, Book Review, or some other established entity). Do you have links to the book reviews? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G. Edward Griffin (2nd nomination), the book's author, for some drama, sockpuppets, etc. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. That the book has been revised and reprinted 23 years after it was first published suggests some notability. Unfortunately, it is not a make-or-break clue, and, in the absence of other clues, I am forced to conclude that the book has no more of a valid claim of notability that its author does, and that the reprinting simply reflects the fact someone had money to lose. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 21:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. no evidence of notability presented. --Fredrick day (talk) 17:45, 25 February 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 - Philippe | Talk 05:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1 Of The Girls[edit]

Musical group's only claim to notability is one single, and I'm not convinced that it meets WP:MUSIC criterion 2 as it was not the national chart it reached, it was the R&B chart. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep 1 major-label album (on Atlantic), 2 singles one of which charted, and production by Gerald Levert, who they also apparently performed with. All told I'd say it just scrapes by the spirit of WP:MUSIC, if perhaps not quite the letter. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. This definitely isn't a clear-cut case.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and take away any of the three primary notability points (major-label album, charting single, very-notable producer) and I'd be voting delete. Having had a dig for sources, it seems this group was to Levert what Cicero was to the Pet Shop Boys: somewhat of a protege. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although a critical difference is that Pet Shop Boys are widely known and their name is recognised, whereas 1 of the Girls are not.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that neither 1 of the Girls nor Cicero ever got much mainstream success, but for what it's worth Gerald Levert certainly was a very very notable musician when he was alive. See his article for details. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at it. Do you think that a merge there might not be out of the question? It doesn't seem unreasonable if this is not going to go beyond a stub.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if we delete it now it might be re-added sooner or later --Legolas558 (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - Philippe | Talk 05:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 86 List[edit]

"References" are mentions of their gigs and their own site, save for one brief review of a CD and a search doesn't turn up much more. Seems like a local band that fails each of WP:MUSIC's subheadings. The sole "Lost" claim to fame is weak (it was apparently one episodes (imdb isn't reliable but the other results aren't any more so and he's already been speedied). TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Has several sources but the article needs alot of work on sources, not sure it will be able to be any more than a stub. --neonwhite user page talk 18:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, some local notability doesn't satisfy WP:MUSIC. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:19, 23 February 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 00:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of think tanks in the United Kingdom[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Violates WP:NOT#DIR Ravichandar 17:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an appropriate use of a list. See Wikipedia:Lists#Navigation --neonwhite user page talk 18:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - I am at a loss to explain this nomination. EJF (talk) 18:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good-faith misapplication of WP:NOT#DIR. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is not a directory, it is a list. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep part of WP is lists and certainly this list has it useful place in WP Hmains (talk) 04:54, 27 February 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 - Philippe | Talk 05:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cat-like aliens[edit]

Original research- a collection of fictional characters that the author groups into the category of 'cat-like aliens'. J Milburn (talk) 17:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Was tagged with notability in July 06 shortly after creation. Was prodded in December that year with the comment "Original research/no context" and again in January last year with the comment "Redundant to List of fictional cats. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 12:47, 23 January 2007". First prod was removed with the deceptive comment of "edited", second was removed with comment "removed prod see talk page". J Milburn (talk) 17:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR and listcruft. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 17:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - It is possible, I don't know, that this section was spun off from the List of fictional cats because that article is already at 70K without these entries. If that is the case, then there would be sufficient grounds for keeping it. Also, the claims to OR are, at least in several of the cases I know, spurious. The Kzinti, I can speak to from memory. They are specifically described in the stories as being "cat-like" or some equivalent phrase, and thus there is no original research involved. I believe the same may be true in most of the other cases, and probably is true in many of them. To call it OR without evidence is I believe a failure to AGF. While I could reasonably see the length of several of the entries shortened, or perhaps separated into pieces on individual members of the race, listings like this are much preferable to categories, as they can provide greater content. John Carter (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Claims of OR seem absurd but, in any case, could be addressed with citations to works showing that particular entries are indeed about cat-like aliens. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Grouping these together like this is original research until someone has written about the phenomenon of 'cat-like aliens' in fiction. As far as I am aware, nobody has. Is it acceptable to create a page about anything a group of fictional characters have in common? Fictional characters whose favourite colour is red? I'm sure I could find a few where it explicitly states in the literature that that is their favourite colour... J Milburn (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually, if the sources themselves use that terminology, then it is not a violation of OR as per the WP:OR page, at least as I can read it. If you think otherwise, pleae indicate to me exactly where on that page you see it. The first paragraph of "Sources" leads me to think that simply repeating what the primary sources say, if they call them by such a phrase, is clearly permitted. John Carter (talk) 19:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep probably a violation of WP:SYNTH per above but does seem like a notable phenomenon; cf. Reptilian_humanoid, Reptilian humanoids in fiction. Current article is basically just a list though. JJL (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of extraterrestrials in fiction by type. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Clarity. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough of them for their own list--the concept is notable, andthe details verifiable.DGG (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but cleanup. All entries should have a source indicating where the aliens in question were described as "cat-like," either in the original work of fiction itself or in a reliable secondary source. (This could include director commentaries, reviews, etc.) Including entries on the list simply because of visual similarity would be original research. *** Crotalus *** 11:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It does seem to refer to cat-like aliens. Maybe it should be renamed "List of cat-like aliens"? 99.230.152.143 (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: We've got List of extraterrestrials in fiction by type which is really a collection of lists like this one, also we've got List of fictional cats for any very special characters. Cat-like aliens makes some grandiose claims to notability without anything to support these claims: for example, "They have become a common trope of fictional aliens, being seen in many fictional universes.". At least from my own personal experience, this claim is simply untrue - even if not, it is most definitely WP:OR. Jobjörn (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-potentially useful for a filmography researchCholga^talK! 05:01, 28 February 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 - Philippe | Talk 06:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Bathurst van collision[edit]

Article about a bus crash. Recieved a flurry of media attention, but has no lasting significance. Wikipedia is not a news service. The article has behaved in a similar way to the media attention- a load of editing, and now a (possibly) permanent lull. J Milburn (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional keep. "It was also the worst accident involving a Canadian sports team.". If that's true (I have not found a ref yet), then it's a notable accident. Otherwise delete.Halfmast (talk) 17:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge consider merging it with Bathurst High School. I doubt it has sufficient notability for it's own article. --neonwhite user page talk 18:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's already a little section at Bathurst High School (Bathurst, New Brunswick). Some more would be good, certainly. J Milburn (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, press coverage establishes notability. Everyking (talk) 19:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Bathurst High School (Bathurst, New Brunswick). Unfortunatly, there's lots of accidents. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This doesn't seem to be considered a simple incident; it is called "the worst in New Brunswick since ... 1989". Also, I doubt that all incidents have had called "a day of mourning across the country". As for the argument on "no lasting significance", what can be told for sure is that it's still very much in the news [13]. As for the argument that the article is in "permanent lull", it's not an argument at all: editing on Africa-related articles, I know how much a single editor can make the difference, even if those articles, as unfortantely happens quite often there, may not be edited for literally years, automated edits excluded. After all, you yourself had to add a "possibly".--Aldux (talk) 20:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "worst" is a subjective term, the text in the article is also unsourced (as is the "day of mourning") and there is no criteria for how to measure how bad an accident is. It's just not encyclopedic, so it cannot be kept on that basis. --neonwhite user page talk 17:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I took for granted that "worst" meant in this context "most deadly", and this wouldn't seem to me so subjective. Anyways, at least regarding that it's the second most deadly incident in all New Bruswick's history and the biggest since 1989 I've found this source [14]. That it's the worst incident ever involving a Canadian sports team is said here [15]. As for the mourning day, this may be a possible misunderstanding of the source: Harper says that the nation is in mourning, but doesn't speak of a formal day of mourning.[16]--Aldux (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to the unfortunate records and the national day of mourning. Everyday accidents don't get that. --Dhartung | Talk 22:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Bathurst High School (Bathurst, New Brunswick). There are not many links to the article and is hard to search up. People who want to read this can just go to the school article. Besides, it is mow part of the history of the school. smileydude66 (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep concerning events in New Brunswick, this is a major event and will probably lead to laws and regulation changes in New Brunswick and maybe other areas in Canada (currently their is proceedings to ban certain types of vehicles from sports team use). Under the condition that it will cause lasting change, this article is a keep. --Kuzwa (talk) 23:38, 28 February 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. Spebi 07:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PowerAda[edit]

WP:NN as an obscure computing product. Failed recent ((prod)). Unable to find articles beyond promotional, commercial directory and support material. Article has been a stub since 2006. Toddst1 (talk) 16:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't find anything making this product notable either. Recent activity on the article has been by a WP:COI editor. ju66l3r (talk) 11:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - Philippe | Talk 06:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Hamdani[edit]

Not notable, I guess? Real name gives no Google results as well as most of the books. Most search results for "Ahmed Hamdani" are about a musician called "Marghoob Ahmed Hamdani" or a football player. The article has no references. fschoenm (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hut 8.5 16:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any refs under any variant spelling ("Ahmad" etc.). There was a famous (ancient) Urdu poet called Ahmed Hamdani, but it's not this guy. Halfmast (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is the "famous (ancient[?]) poet" really not this guy? I could not find any explicit reference to an ancient poet with this name, but I found this excerpt of an essay by Saleem Ahmad, from a symposium on "The Future of the Ghazal", which someone posted here
  "My exposition will not be complete, perhaps, without mentioning a tendency that appeared in about 1957 in the ghazal, and which is most pointedly articulated by Zafar Iqbal and some other poets of his ilk. This is the most infamous form of the ghazal because it projects a man who, disillusioned with all the known forms of man that have appeared within the last hundred years, advocates sheer destruction. He uses his creative ability only to destroy. His attitude is full of scorn, irony, derision and vulgarity. He mocks everything, slings mud at it, and distorts it. The advent of the "destructive" man after the man of "feelings" signals the tragic fact that every effort to define man has failed. Basheer Badr, Muhammad Alavi, Anwar Shu'ur and others represent this destructive tendency. It may be mentioned here that the popularity of the ghazals of Ahmad Hamdani in some circles reflects the fond desire in this chaotic period for some familiar image of man. And the distinct echo of Firaq in Ahmad Hamdani's ghazals only helps gratify that desire."
  I am aware that newsgroups are not RS, however the essay is clearly written by someone whith a sound knowledge of Urdu poetry. The above, together with some other tidbits that can be gleaned online, suggests that Ahmed Hamdani is a contemporary poet enjoying significant popularity. Whether the article is worth keeping is another story. L'omo del batocio (talk) 11:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced. Article states that he won the Pakistan's Writers Guild Award, which might make him notable, but I can't find a source for that. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep with a references tag for the moment, and reconsider notability later. Per omo del batocio, I can't judge notability (not speaking urdu etc.) and have WP:CSB in mind here Dsp13 (talk) 14:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus; default to keep - Philippe | Talk 06:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Universe reality[edit]

Tagged for notability for over six months and not fixed. This is a facet of the Urantia book that has no independent references cited. This article appears to be the web's leading resource on this term, and most of the others do not look helpful as sources. Guy (Help!) 15:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. If we accept the Urantia book as notable (and I see no Afd on it) and if the Urantia article is too big for this info to be comfortably added (which it is), then a separate page looks a good idea. It's all looney tunes of course, but that's not a reason to delete it.Halfmast (talk) 17:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But what sources independent of Urantia exist to substantiate the subject? I can see it as a section in Urantia but I can't find any evidence of independent significance. Guy (Help!) 18:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, we face the fact that WP:SS and WP:N conflict. Or if they do not, they are not worded clearly enough to make it obvious they don't. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Universe reality article is a summary of a major topic in the Urantia Book. WP:SS--"Sections of long articles should be spun off into their own articles leaving a summary in its place".

What Guy says is true: there are no independent sources (that I am aware of) that address the topic of universe reality as it is presented in the Urantia Book. The Urantia Book article is already difficult to read, I wonder if anyone not familiar with it can get through it. The editors there have been trying to simplify it as best they can. It simply is too much to put the UR article into the already burdensome Urantia Book artricle.

The same problem probably exists also for the "History and future of the World" and the "Revelation (The Urantia Book)" articles. I doubt that either of these are in any third party book.

These three articles are summary extensions of the main article, not stand alone articles. It is clearly indicated, we hope, that these articles are extensions of the main article.

On third party references: There are six third party books and 7 websites on the Urantial Book. The Koran has 10 books listed as third party references: 4 more than the Urantia Book-but then its been around a little longer. I addressed the summary vs synthesis issue in my remarks on Jan 25, which you probably have seen.--Richiar (talk) 01:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: I just noticed that the title of the article should have read: "Universe reality (The Urantia Book)". That was an error on my part. I put in references at the bottom of the page also.--Richiar (talk) 05:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but as "Cosmology (The Urantia Book)", and use it as the main article for that topic according to WP:SS (there already is a decent but cumbersome subsection "Cosmology" in The Urantia Book article, which could actually stand to have content shifted to a side article like this one). The book doesn't use the phrase "universe reality" as a specially defined term and "cosmology" could be taken as a synonym as far as I can tell. There is independent third-party assessment that this aspect of the book is notable. The harshest published criticism to date was Martin Gardner's Urantia: The Great Cult Mystery, but his summary conclusion on this aspect of the book was that "The UB's cosmology outrivals in fantasy the cosmology of any science fiction work known to me". Brad Gooch in his book echoed this view and added in the context of discussing the cosmology that "No one can read through the UB, or even just parts of it, without wondering how such an incredibly detailed mix of science, ethics, politics, and polytheology ever got set down in one monstrous blue-covered volume." That being said it's clear the article is in rough shape and needs a lot of work. I've been on the fence about whether it's a suitable topic for a wikipedia article and haven't contributed to it before, but in the sense of it becoming a WP:NPOV explanation of the TUB's cosmology (eg, like Mormon cosmology, Hindu cosmology, etc... heck, there's even a Raëlian cosmology article on WP), I think that it is a defensible sub-topic to keep and improve. If there is agreement by the end of the Afd that it is worth keeping, I'll assist with clean up. Wazronk (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus; default to keep without prejudice against relisting - Philippe | Talk 06:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Gotti[edit]

Unreferenced and fails to establish notability. The article is written like a promo of the supposed rapstar. Page has been created and deleted several times, the template from the last protection due to repeated creation is still there. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 15:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 15:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per WP:MUSIC, with a little WP:SPAM thrown in. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NYTimes album review and allmusic profile should satisfy notability; please see my edits to the article and corrected allmusic link. Is there a way to protect these articles from these 2-3 day/week accounts that trash these articles and keep getting them deleted? Flowanda | Talk 18:17, 24 February 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 - Philippe | Talk 06:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WyvernRail plc[edit]

The article is reffed to just one book, but which parts are from the book? Some appears to break POV rules. It was written by their press manager, nferguso wyvern (talk · contribs), which i believe is not allowed. Repeats info already at Ecclesbourne Valley Railway, and that which is not there isn't notable. The company hasn't done anything notable in both rail or other terms. BG 7 15:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect - BG 7 17:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Strong delete per nom" (!). Didn't you just nominate this yourself? Halfmast (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I am aloud to add my vote. It's part of the nom process.BG 7
- And you've nominated it under Music! Halfmast (talk) 17:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do I really look bothered? You haven't formatted it properly, but you don't see me wingeing. BG 7
- Also, doesn't read like an encyclopeadic entry - more a tourist guide, or even worse, POV. BG 7 17:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article's not like any tourist guide I've ever seen - although its tone is slightly promotional it looks like an encyclopedia article just not a particularly good one, although it could be improved. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 18:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hmmm ok. That's what i'm getting at though. It's promotional (as is the EVR entry, but at least it is better.), and it's been written by the railways promo officer. Surely thats a reason? If people really want to know, then they'll write it in proper WP style using refs. Theress also an issue of the user reverting edits to the EVR page about the stock list etc, but that's to elsewhere. It's a free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, not anyone can edit but will be reverted by the places PR officer. But, as I said that will go elsewhere. BG 7 18:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Real organization, registered company, notable in its niche. [17][18][19]. Just needs a few refs and a bit of meat on the bones.Halfmast (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it notable? 3 web links? Which the first is actually for EVRA, not Wyvern. EVRA are already at Eccelsbourne Valley Railway. If we allow Wyvern, why not Peak Rail plc, Severn Valley, Great Central, Churnet, Foxfield etc? BG 7 17:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hey, you've nominated, voted, and commented! I've said what I think and I stand by it. Take it or leave it. Halfmast (talk) 17:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Theres no need to be rude or sarcy. If you can't give reasons, then what weight will your vote carry? Am I not aloud to nominate, vote or comment? BG 7 17:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. Should someone who can't spell saucy or allowed really be editing Wikipedia?212.71.37.74 (talk) 20:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Firstly, it's sarcy as in sarcasm, not saucy, secondly, it's quicker to type aloud than allowed. If someone is dyslexic (I am not), it's no reason for them not to be on WP. You can't even be bothered to get an account, so nothing you say will ever carry any weight. And i've reported you for a personal attack, and for being insensitive. BG 7 09:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - "EVRA are already at Eccelsbourne Valley Railway" an article that does not exist yet? Sheesh!Halfmast (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's called a TYPO. Ecclesbourne Valley Railway. Have you not heard of a typo? BG 7 17:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Ecclesbourne Valley Railway and redirect it there - the scope of the articles overlaps and they both appear to be about the same thing. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 18:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect seems to be the obvious choice here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per above. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - lack of significant media coverage - I'm not convinced the Matlock Mercury constitutes a reliable source.--19:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC) Addhoc (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Ecclesbourne Valley Railway, with which it largely overlaps. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Ecclesbourne Valley Railway. There is no point to a separate article. --Dhartung | Talk 23:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I have been asked to close this debate but it feels too contentious.... and I can't understand why. Someone has some refs ... good.... add them. Someone feels this can be merged.. OK have a go.,,, show us. I think this company would not exist withour the railway. They are logically the same thing. Merge. ... but don't start name calling. It belittles all of those involved. Walk away if you are getting upset (WP is a big place). AGF if you stay. Victuallers (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -The WyvernRail section is padded out with information purely pertaining to the history of the line itself. The editor is a board member of said company and surely is breaching Wikipedia codes of conduct regarding self-promotion in any case [[20]]. Some of the article is actually referring to the activities of the supporting Association. The EVRA is the volunteer arm of Wyvernrail; or WyvernRail is the commercial arm of EVRA. They are inextricably intertwined and therefore their entries should be merged. --Skeletor2000 (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge - The good faith creator of this article was given no feedback on it, either on article talk or user talk page for over eight months. There were a few article edits, but they were minor or technical. The first substantial attention given to the article is nomination for deletion. This treatment violates the intent if not the substance of WP:BITE policy. Wanderer57 (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - Philippe | Talk 06:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NBC Daytime[edit]

The page is a list of old programs and a "program guide" with only two shows actively run be NBC and not local programming. Information on those two programs can be included in the program articles and do not need a secondary location for just more lists. See WP:LISTCRUFT for additional reasons this article should be deleted. It is also lacking in any references or sources of information. Additionally, there are other pages that already house this information NBC, List of programs broadcast by NBC, and the NBC article has a section addressing this [21]. KellyAna (talk) 15:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. The fact that there is only one program after The Today Show (Days of Our Lives) pretty well shows that "NBC Daytime" programming no longer exists. The article tries to compensate by running a list of shows that used to be on during the daytime, and that's already been done Mandsford (talk) 15:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Carter | Talk to me 16:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am adding :CBS Daytime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for the same reasons outlined by nom. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice. We'll look forward to when you do that. Mandsford (talk) 22:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the difference is CBS Daytime is larger than NBC and it doesn't have its own section in the CBS article. It's rather apples and oranges and if you want it deleted, make it's own AfD. KellyAna (talk) 19:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both. Whatever the current status of this programming block, notability does not expire, and this has surely been covered by reliable sources. The article has more information than NBC#Daytime programs and incorporates lists that would be excessive to merge there. Daytime and Prime time operate under different rules (primarily being subject to more local pre-emption). --Dhartung | Talk 23:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the lists exist in their own article and this is a new article started December 30, 2007. It's got no references and is just copy and paste from other lists. As all content exists in three other places (five if you count the two articles for Today and Days of our Lives), it's redundant and notability is questionable. FYI, this has nothing to do with the CBS article, that has to have its own nomination as they are not the same situation. KellyAna (talk) 23:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As it is, there is no more NBC Daytime, and the programming schedule can vary from station to station so much that Today can be shown as late as 2pm so the grid listing is incorrect unless it's an NBC affiliate that runs everything as default. Note that the other two network daytime blocks are confirmed block brands used by their networks while NBC used it in a casual sense, and easily establish their notability. Nate • (chatter) 06:44, 24 February 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. Spebi 07:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of UE Lleida head to head[edit]

Un-encyclopedic and indiscriminate collection of information Sebisthlm (talk) 15:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Sebisthlm (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sebisthlm (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Delete per nominator. Sebisthlm (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 17:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. BanRay 16:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GiantSnowman (talk) 17:20, 24 February 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. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 22:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

R. J. Danvers[edit]

Subject created article that fails WP:PORNBIO. BlueAzure (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. BlueAzure (talk) 15:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN with WP:COI. His only claims to notability are associations with award-winning films or people. (Of course, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED.) All WP:RS coverage simply confirms that he is a new porn star. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RJ is notable because he made history when he became the youngest person to be signed to Raging Stallion Studios, a studio notorious for using older models. In the GayVN article, it clearly states he is the youngest to ever be signed to the long standing studio. Also, the notability guidelines state that a person "Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography, or starring in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature." RJ starred in Grunts, a groundbreaking and block buster feature, which broke industry sales records and became the top grossing film of the last 5 years. That is notable aside from his being the youngest to appear in a Raging Stallion Studios film. No reason whatsoever he should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.75.131 (talk) 16:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In the GayVN article,[22] the main content is the Danvers' agent and the new studio talking up its latest star. In general, porn stars need objective acknowledgment of achievement, usually as an award nom or win. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As for Grunts, can you cite a source independent of Danvers that credits him individually for the achievements this "groundbreaking" film? The cited sources don't even mention him. The general promo for the film mentions him in two scenes. Does an objective source say that he contributed a major part of this award-winning work? Also, most of those awards were for production. Without objective evidence, being in a possibly notable production does not transfer notability to everyone in it. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I dont understand. Independent of Danvers? He appeared in 5 scenes throughout the film. The notability guidelines state that the person had to appear in a ground breaking film. That was proven, with the amount of awards won, the budget, the profit of the film, and the cited article. I dont understand what else needs to be added. It almost seems unfair. I'm not sure what is not notable about his achievements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.75.131 (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Isnt it also notable that EVERY SINGLE project he worked on in his first year in the industry was nominated for awards at the GayVN's? It seems to me that would be something difficult to accomplish, especially for a newcomer at 18 years of age.
  - Another thing I noticed... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tory_Mason ... Tory Mason's article has stood the test of time, beating deletion review. He and RJ have been in the industry approximately the same amount of time, and yet RJ has had more accomplishments than Tory, his films gaining more awards and he himself quite a bit of recognition. Why does Tory's article stay, while RJ's must go? Do not understand whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockstars721 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please see What about article X? under arguments to avoid. From my reading of the January 2007 AfD for Tory Mason, the article survived by virtue of a mention in the mainstream gay press under Criteria #4 of the old WP:PORNBIO guideline in effect at the time [23]. That rationale has been superseded by WP:BIO general notability guideline. Also, that AfD went up about 90 minutes after the article was created, and that was counted against it. Mason's notability may be marginal by the current standard, but it is still better sourced than Danvers'. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't get how it is better sourced. I've used AVN multiple times as a source, and that's very credible. Appearing in several high profile award winning and award nominated movies and being signed exclusively at such a young age to a VERY major studio should be enough to be deemed notable! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockstars721 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Again, Mason has a non-porn gay press mention, thin by by current standard but there. Beyond that, Mason's and Danvers' porn press coverage is alike, sharing the same problems. Two of the AVN/GayVN sources say what Grunts achieved and don't mention Danvers. I don't know Mason's notability by current without research, but I found very little credible sourcing for Danvers. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        So is Danvers interview in MAINSTREAM LGBT publication Genre magazine enough for notability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockstars721 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've been doing some research around. This IS my first article on Wikipedia. In doing research, I learned that the notability issue is a GUIDELINE. ""This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted."" as found in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BIO ... so if they are just guidelines, and not necessarily requirements.... RJ's achievements are notable. His age, rise to stardom, and accomplishments in less than a year in the industry should be recognized. His participation in numerous award winning and nominated films is notable. There was a bit of a small uproar amongst internet websites when he himself was left off the GayVN nominees list. I also know now that in my previous post it was not right for me to cite "but what about this article?" as a reason it should stay, but in all honesty.... why should some articles stay and some go, when they have similar content? I have cited numerous sources to vouch for his notability, but its still up for discussion? I reread the article about when RJ first got signed to Raging Stallion, and the only part even mentioned in the wiki article was about how he was the youngest performer to be signed to Raging Stallion. The fact that the rest of the article has quotes from his agent shouldn't reflect on a stated FACT in the beginning of the article. I just can't find a reason why this shouldn't be allowed to stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockstars721 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Guidelines are the working editor consensus, and occasional exceptions need good reasons. We're not there yet. If somebody credible writes about this uproar, then it could count. Notability guidelines discount Internet "popularity" for porn because it is so easily and so often manipulated. In short, Danvers needs ongoing attention from WP:RELIABLE sources (general notability) or objective recognition from the industry/critics/peers (PORNBIO). • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Okay. Understood. But what I dont get, is how you are claiming that I have to get more and more sources when I've already established notability based on the porn star guidelines. It says, simply, that someone has to appear in a groundbreaking film. I've proven that. How much further do I have to go? This does not seem fair, whatsoever. The whole reason it is being brought up for deletion is for notability purposes. When I first made this article, I didn't understand how the deletion process or notability establishment worked. I'm still learning... so far, I am finding it to be REALLY difficult to please the editors. I've done what the notability guidelines state I have to do, and still I'm being told it's not enough. Is his interview in MAINSTREAM LGBT publication Genre magazine enough to establish notability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockstars721 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The Genre interview would be a good start as long as there is a citation to verify it, like a link at genremagazine.com or issue date/no. with page no. that people can look up. Depending upon what's in it, it can help a lot. Beyond that, "groundbreaking" and "iconic" are extraordinary claims that need high quality sources to back them up. • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay. Well I will cite from Genre. Hopefully that can take care of this issue. I'm removing the tag.--Rockstars721 (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Also, what is the criteria for something being named "ground breaking"? I find it to be a word with many interpretations. What would constitute a porn film being ground breaking? I would think being the most expensive, most profitable, record breaking film in recent years would constitute a movie being ground breaking. --Rockstars721 (talk) 22:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he has appeared in mainstream LGBT publication (Genre), and fulfills the notability requirement for adult film stars by appearing in a ground breaking, award winning film as a star (Grunts).--Rockstars721 (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, BlueAzure went and added CITATION NEEDED tags all over the article, in places it didnt need to be added. Nearly every one of the dozen or so citation needed tags are cited. Like any research paper, when you are done paraphrasing an article, you cite. Not after each sentence. The rediculous ammount of citation needed tags are obnoxious! I am removing them on this basis.--Rockstars721 (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The editor may have tagged more than necessary, but another fitting tag would be ((Peacockterm)). The tags about Danvers' starring role in a "groundbreaking" feature still need objective evidence to answer them. In Wikipedia, superlative and extraordinary claims need clear and objective evidence. (Yes, I said this before.) • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As much as I wish these kinds of articles weren't on Wikipedia, this one meets the min criteria. Needs cleanup though. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with BQZip01 that he seems to meet WP:BIO. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete under criteria G12; direct copy of material copywritten at The New York Times website. Marasmusine (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All Star Cashville Prince[edit]

This has been recreated many times (the protection template is still there). It is unreferenced, fails to establish notability, and its only major contributer is a user who's name is the same as the article, which points to a conflict of interest. Furthermore, the article is written in an exteremely POV style, with lines such as "He has what most rappers dream of: a devoted fan base" and other such overly fanboy material throughout. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 14:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 14:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is extreme POV, also has no references. As mentioned, this is also a possible COI. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Sox!} 15:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references. Macy's123 (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I could bring myself to read only a little of yesterday's edits, but several sections look cribbed from the NYTimes article. This article underwent the same binge/purge content cycle in December; going back to my last edit in the history might provide a cleaner, though bare, article to debate notability. Being signed to a large label and featured in the NY Times is nothing to sneeze at; it does seem name changes (he's now All $tar apparently) and glitches in the Cash Money machinery (which is alive and well on Wikipedia) may hamper finding evidence of notability, see this:[24]. As to the name, I gave up trying to find a template message to place on the editor's page (my assumption was that it wasn't the artist, but a violation of username policy), especially when many of these accounts last a few days or weeks. Flowanda | Talk 18:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The NYTimes ref is good, in fact its too good, and it copy-vio. Speedy Delete. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:12, 23 February 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ash (artist)[edit]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Par above. Article is a re-creation of an earlier CSD'ed article. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 13:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Recreation of a previously speedied article is not a valid speedy deletion criterion: it can only be speedied for that reason if the previous deletion happened after a full discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment' I know. I just did not want to split it into a WP:BIO delete and a comment stating the article was deleted earlier. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 09:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete speedily as failing WP:V and WP:BIO with the generic name making it impossible to find sources for if any even exist. Could be a redirect to Ash (band) but kind of implausible as a search term.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Recreation of speedied article, fails WP:BIO, unreferenced. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Sox!} 15:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as A7/nn-bio. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - per WP:BIO. Macy's123 (talk) 18:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Weak article, WP:BIO crassic\^talk 19:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails verifiability, as no independent reliable sources are provided. —C.Fred (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. This article speaks about history of street art in europe. (Solanas (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to James Adams (character). It seems that he has some association with "cherub" and so will be useful as a redirect. Spebi 07:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Adams (CHERUB)[edit]

An more detailed article on the same character exsists at James Adams (character). I propose that James Adams (CHERUB) should be deleted.

Delete There is already another article on the same character, and that one seems a lot more detailed as well as better referenced than this one. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Sox!} 15:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to James Adams (character). Which could have been done without an AfD, with discussion in the articles. Or if you insist, using merge templates. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pointless redirect, it's not a searched term. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect if better article already exists about the same person. crassic\^talk 19:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant media coverage implausible redirect, and covered by the disambiguation page. Addhoc (talk) 20:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Boris, Hereditary Prince of Montenegro. The question of Boris' notability may be determined at a separate AfD. While notability is not inherited, in this case it is intertwined. If his article should at some point be deleted, there will no longer be GFDL need to retain hers. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Véronique, Princess of Montenegro[edit]

Nonnotable. There has not been a "Prince of Montenegro for the past 509 years, according to Montenegro#History. This wife of a fictional heir to a nonexistent throne has no other notability of her own right either. Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Royalty are default notable per precedents about other AfDs, but I don't know anything about the history of the monarchy in Montenegro, so I'll not "vote".--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the whole point. She is not royalty by any stretch of the imagination, nor is her husband. Gene Nygaard (talk) 14:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, both are modern pretenders to the throne whose ancestors were rulers from 1852 to 1918. Almost every other modern pretender (please don't quote wp:otherstuff at me) so there may be a precedent somewhere. Otherwise I feel that the family members are notable enough - Dumelow (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In any case, it is still a non-existent throne, and they are not royalty. Gene Nygaard (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although the pretender to a throne is notable, I see no need for a separate article about the spouse of a pretender to the throne, nor a sibling, nor a cousin. It's enough to include in the article Boris, Hereditary Prince of Montenegro that "His wife is Veronique." If she wants to "pretend" that she's Queen of the Balkans, that's her problem, not ours. Mandsford (talk) 16:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Per above Carter | Talk to me 16:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to her husband, Boris, Hereditary Prince of Montenegro (no, i'm not sexist, it seems like he's more of the "royal"). His notability will be an afd on another day. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per above. crassic\^talk 19:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge While Gene's comments are riddled with flaws and inaccuracy, this woman is not notable outside of the context of her husband. Charles 19:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There appears to be nothing to write an article on about her in her own right. She should be covered under the article on her husband, and I believe she is. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Boris. There can hardly be inherent notability for the spouse of a pretender. This could be a search term, though. --Dhartung | Talk 23:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the History of Montenegro article says that there hasn't been a prince in 500 years, it's wrong. Nikola was prince as late as 1910. Nyttend (talk) 00:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the nom is misinterpreting some wording that seems to have substandard English grammar. --Dhartung | Talk 08:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as above. --Merovingian (T, C) 08:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not clear to me that Veronique is in fact married to the hereditary prince of Montenegro. See Online Gotha. Note that the article does not say when the wedding took place. If Veronique isn't married to Boris, then she isn't a princess, and in that case the premise and title of this article are inaccurate. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See here. The proper title of the article is Véronique, Hereditary Princess of Montenegro. Charles 21:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Online Gotha entry has changed since my previous recommendation and now indicates the couple's marriage. Therefore, merge and redirect to her husband per other merge recommendations. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per above. Kyriakos (talk) 07:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. No assertion of independent notability. Eusebeus (talk) 00:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to single article on the controversy. Keep as a redirect to the page. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments[edit]

According to his article, her husband's (or possibly not husband) grandfather Michael in 1929 "renounced his dynasty's claim to the defunct throne of Montenegro". There is really no reason to merge her with non-notable husband/paramour, do-nothing (oops, sorry, he did go to school and studied art, don't know if he ever graduated, but that's the only thing mentioned about him and so have lots of other people, that in itself isn't reason for keeping him) pretender to a nonexistent throne without a snowball's chance in hell of ever being restored. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:51, 25 February 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Low stress training[edit]

Violation of Manual and Guidebook Lines, Possible G12 for copying of a public forum, along with notability issues of the article Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 13:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Par being the one who suggested AFD. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 13:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Λua∫Wi se ^{(Operibus anteire)} 14:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a manual or a guidebook. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Sox!} 15:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. This how-to guide for growing marijuana in a garden makes for a tastier version, since it uses steaks instead of stakes. Mandsford (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Carter | Talk to me 16:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:WWIN. Macy's123 (talk) 18:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT#HOWTO. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with what others above have said, but also it's poorly written, no sources, and just ... not an article worth keeping. crassic\^talk 19:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW. Chetblong^{T C} 19:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muffin Personality Test[edit]

WP:V, WP:NFT. An obvious hoax or joke article. Google yields no results for the test's supposed inventor, "the renowned child psychiatrist Dr Freidrich Mauhaven", or even for the correct spelling "Friedrich Mauhaven". Sandstein (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Obvious nonsense, probably a hoax and no sources to verify the information. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Sox!} 12:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:BOLLOCKS and the one about something I made up in school one day. Lugnuts (talk) 12:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (I proposed deletion but it was removed without comment.) No speedy; WP:BOLLOCKS and WP:NFT are not valid speedy criteria. Powers ^T 14:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly an unverifiable hoax, not speediable as wp:speedy criteria specifically exclude hoaxes (per Powers) - Dumelow (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everything said in this entire debate.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Commment Too lame even for supermarket tabloids, which regularly run features like "Moe, Larry, Curly, Shemp: Stooge you like best, key to your personality!" Mandsford (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Strong delete Per h i s Carter | Talk to me 16:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete lame silliness, not even coherent enough to be called a hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:V. Macy's123 (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect, already done. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everholt[edit]

Delete Fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete- copy vio of [25] Welt^anschaunng 12:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Content is available under GNU Free Documentation License. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 12:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This page seems to have already been redirected. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Sox!} 12:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support its current state, as a Redirect. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Support already initiated redirect. BusterD (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as usual with all similar Middle-earth articles, and speedy close as the page has already been redirected by its creator. Súrendil (talk) 16:34, 24 February 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 00:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Habib Tanious Shartouni[edit]

Article about a living(?) person which, without a single source, makes allegations of murder. Azate (talk) 11:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. plenty of sources, and notable for assassinating a coutry's president-elect. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I meant that there are no sources in the Wikipeadia article. Now about your link (google): The first 15 hits are:
  1) A BBS of www.lebanese-forces.org,
  2) A book review from www.thenation.com
  3) A geocities.com userpage
  4) A link farm, spock.com
  5) A www.canadafreepress.com article, which uses Wikipeadia as its source,
  6) www.bachirgemayel.org, problematic, because the is the guy who was assassinated,
  7) antiwrinklecream.beautytipstoday.com (!)
  8) An amazon.com book review, title: "A dubious, historically inaccurate screed" (reviewing the same book as 2), afaiks)
  9) xenosparadox.blogspot.com, some blog
  10) www.zionism-israel.com, not exactly a major newssource either
  11) portal.sawtbeirut.com, a private lebanese internet radio
  12) a mirror of an indymedia.com article, which moreover claims: "assassination was pinned on Habib Tanious Shartouni"
  13) www.irazoo.com, another link farm
  14) www.spiritus-temporis.com, link farm
  15) www.zindamagazine.com: Quote "[Gemayel, the victim] was killed in a bomb blast planted and set off by Habib Tanious Shartouni, a member of the pro-Damascus National Syrian Socialist Party which favored the merger of Syria, Lebanon, and Palastine. According to Washington Post only Bashir Gemayel's prominent nose, the dimple on his chin, and his hexagonal wedding ring could be identified from his remains." (!!!)
  
  These are ultra-lousy sources indeed! I have no dog in this fight. I don't even get exactly who claims what or denies something else. The only thing I see is that the allegations against Habib Tanious Shartouni involve a good amount of Lebanese and Mideastern conspiracy, mud-slinging and party-politics. These are murky waters. Where is a decent source? Azate (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Most murderers aren't notable, but he committed a major political assassination. Pburka (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think that these sources or these can be dismissed quite so easily. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep highly notable individaul as pointed out by Phil directly above me. I'm a bit concerned by the systemic bias indicated by this nomination. I don't think for example that we would have thought of AfDing John Wilkes Booth. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. What systemic bias?? The very first sentence of WP:DEL says: "Reasons for deletion include [...] unreferenced negative content in biographies of living persons.". This article has ZERO references.Azate (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, let me use my perennial example; if the article about John Hinkley had zero references in it would you be nominating it for deletion? JoshuaZ (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Absolutely. While I do remember that somebody tried to shoot Reagan, I would have been unable to remember the name. Moreover, when presented with the name John Hinkley in isolation, I'd have been unable to say who he was. Not everybody lives in the U.S., where, I assume, his name is more widely known. Same with Shartouni. I remember that Gemayel was shot, but Shartouni's name is alien to me. Without good references (let alone none at all), the prudent thing to do is to distrust the article. The list of first-result Google hits above would only strengthen my suspicion, that the article may be wildly off the mark. What if you encountered an article that claims (unreferenced) that Mormon assassins shot Reagan? I'm sure you'd have Google hits of a quality similar the the Shartouni ones. Azate (talk) 00:52, 28 February 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blobbo Lite[edit]

Old freeware game with no assertion of notability, no coverage in reliable sources (only sources are the game's FAQ and a French listing site). Stormie (talk) 11:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Freeware games are generally not notable, and though the article says this came close to being ported to SNES, it also says that never actually happened. No real surces either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per no reliable or good sources Carter | Talk to me 16:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability unestablished. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. crassic\^talk 19:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of sources. Guy (Help!) 16:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not convinced of notability. Superm401 - Talk 08:41, 27 February 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 00:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Historical structures of Governments of the Russian Federation[edit]

Deletion arguments see [26]. It has to be kept because the structure changes through time and one is current and there are also historical ones. It is useful to determine what the structure was when a event in the past is analysed. Many offices change names and the article is helpful to track that. It is to be updated with better formatting, as the main article is also still too short and has to be expanded. The main article, Government of Russia, may be a place to store the current structure if updated, similar to the template. Corresponding Russian article for this AfD is ru:Структура федеральных органов исполнительной власти (1994—2000). --ssr (talk) 10:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. —ssr (talk) 11:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep useful article, does not violate any policies Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Commment It's a mess. It links to an article on ru.wikipedia, "Структура федеральных органов исполнительной власти (1994—2000)" and that article appears to be seven different reorganizations in less than six years. I gather that the point of this article is to show how agencies were organized when the the RSFSR was a part of the USSR, and then how it is now that the Russian Federation is its own nation. That's a lot of information to present, and this article doesn't organize it very well. Maybe it should be userfied until it can make its point. Mandsford (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it's a mess that is a result of the complexity of the subject and number of the authors who contributed to the article. As I said, it's going to be updated, but not quickly (changes in government are possible after Russian presidential election, 2008). That means article is in "raw" state and is to be improved, not deleted. --ssr (talk) 10:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete If kept, definitely needs to be overhauled and improved. crassic\^talk 19:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep crassic\^talk 23:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is messy, but that's not a reason to delete it outright.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep - clearly never going to be deleted - Peripitus (Talk) 22:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

San José Pinula[edit]

It is a half-of-line stub (substub). Kubek15 - Talk, Userboxes, Contributions 11:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coincidentally, this article wasn't a half-of-line stub until 00:50 of 23 February 2008. The nomination was made later in the day. Maybe Kubek15 and AndreasJS can get together some time, since they share a common interest. Others of us will simply try to translate the article from Spanish into English, which is what the article was tagged for. Mandsford (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added expand tag as this article definitely has potential Carter | Talk to me 16:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, we'd keep it if it were American and this is a bad faith, anti-Latin American nomination, though I notice there is no afd tag on the article and suggest this process is speedied now, there is quite simply nothing in the current article meriting deletion and the fact that somebody added Spanish text is not a reason for deletion. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, even if it were a half-line stub. Pburka (talk) 19:12, 23 February 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. The balance of the debate was for deletion with the argument against a merge (unsourced) winning the day. I also note that the editors of a long page Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness haven't judged this important enough to mention. I carried out a web search here and thought I had hit gold. However, in all uses except the WP entry, F&G apparently stands for 'Freaks & Geeks'! This search fared no better. TerriersFan (talk) 21:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

F&G[edit]

Delete fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Smashing Pumpkins. The Transhumanist 11:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of nelogisms. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Sox!} 15:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the origination from Smashing Pumpkins is sourced then merge/redirect to the latter, otherwise Delete per WP:NEO. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per above. crassic\^talk 19:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Neologisms are permitted on Wikipedia (like "e-mail"); I'm tired of that argument being slapped on anything new that a user doesn't like. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:BQZip01. As brewcrewer points out, it isn't sourced. There's no reason to merge a single line of WP:OR, which then requires us to retain a useless redirect for GFDL compliance. If this information is important & necessary to the Smashing Pumpkins article, it can be added there independently. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aldanon[edit]

Delete fails WP:FICT, WP:NOR and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original Research that fails to establish any real-world notabillity. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources whatsoever, fails others as noted above. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge until album is released or sufficient reliable sources can be cited to verify current notability. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Night Castle[edit]

No references except an interview with no timestamp, lots of OR. Album in question isn't mentioned anywhere on artist website, and ghit test brings up zero official information on the project. ~~Delete~~ Delete or Redirect per WP:CRYSTAL, with no prejudice to recreating if and when reliable information becomes available. SingCal 09:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Trans-Siberian Orchestra until seperate notability is established. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely merge, deletion is not necessary, as this is a legitimate future album, as confirmed by the band at their concert. M173627 (talk) 22:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Confirmation given at a live performance constitutes original research. SingCal 22:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Website states new album coming out and specifically mentions Nightcastle as the title —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.134.33.188 (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found one mention on the website of them "trying to finish up the album." If it doesn't fail WP:CRYSTAL, it still fails WP:N. SingCal 01:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Eusebeus (talk) 00:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Trans-Siberian Orchestra. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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. References establish notability. Non admin closure. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 04:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LIVECHAT Software[edit]

Non-notable IT company - References are either primary or tenuous. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 07:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to add more valuable content to the article, but any advice will be appreciated. Klim3k 14:42, 24 February 2008 (GMT+1) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klim3k (talk • contribs)

Article has been reedited a bit. I added more content about company partners and product. Klim3k (talk • contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 12:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —Visor (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as a public company it deserves notability as long as references to that are valid. For now they look good to me. Nicely written, clean article. greg park avenue (talk) 00:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 20:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dheerudu[edit]

Unsourced; what sources I could find showed that this fails future film notability, and has not yet begun shooting. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article has been flagged as undergoing significant revision. If this revision doesn't establish notability then delete. Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The tag has been up for over three days now and nothing has changed, so I am inclined to say Delete.--The Dominator (talk) 15:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chetblong^{T C} 01:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SorryGuy Talk 07:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not only did they not yet start shooting, they don't know whose playing the roles. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and WP:CRYSTAL -Jahnx (talk) 08:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL and unlikely to be any major film - anywhere. crassic\^talk 19:53, 23 February 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. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 20:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MELCAD[edit]

Non-notable software, unsurprising because the article says it's an internal use software. Ghits appear to be primarily false positives. Travellingcari (talk) 04:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable software. Jfire (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SorryGuy Talk 07:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable -Jahnx (talk) 07:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per notability. crassic\^talk 19:54, 23 February 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. Davewild (talk) 19:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Sidi[edit]

Seemingly non-notable musician. Despite creator's reasoning at talk page, still does not seem to pass WP:MUSIC: his biggest claim to notability appears to be the exec. producer credit, which is not how he is listed and is also no more exceptional than dozens of other exec. producers. tomasz. 19:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could find no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Polly (Parrot) 19:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SorryGuy Talk 06:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources for the article that in any case doesn't satisfy WP:MUSIC. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above per RS, MUSIC and BIO. Eusebeus (talk) 00:18, 29 February 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. Davewild (talk) 20:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haripada Dasa[edit]

Non notable individual. No reliable independent sources provided. Article reads like an advertisement. Wikipedia is not a place for advertisements. Ism schism (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable article, or advertisement, no independent reliable sources. Ism schism (talk) 02:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SorryGuy Talk 06:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. unsourced, and I think there's a lot of untruths going on in the arttcle. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article hasn't met the criteria of Notability(people) -Jahnx (talk) 08:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus to delete. The length of the debate does not diminish the valid points made by editors on both sides. Perhaps there are ways to improve the article that could be implemented? UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 20:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MER MEC S.p.A[edit]

Procedural nomination -- contested A7 speedy deletion, sending here for discussion. I'm neutral on this. - Revolving Bugbear 19:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I feel this article isn't really in violation of anything. I mean, its not Advertising or unencylopedic. Let's keep it.Dusti^talk 19:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete It my not be advertising, but there is nothing to establish notability of the subject, the references establish that it does exist, but not what is notable about it.Beeblbrox (talk) 19:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It fails WP:CORP. Merely having it mentioned in a secondary source as a member of an organization doesn't make it notable: "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. " Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 14:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SorryGuy Talk 06:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No secondary sources attesting to notability. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Several references on scholar.google.com[27] in, e.g., IEEE publications and in the International Railway Journal [28]. They appear to be innovators and well known in their field.Pburka (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be an influential company in their field. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 23:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nervous Melvin and the Mistakes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Nervous Melvin and the Mistakes

Article isn't Verifiable, material appears to be original research, and doesn't meet Notability guidelines Jahnx (talk) 06:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MUSIC standard.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. --Wolfer68 (talk) 21:40, 29 February 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 00:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IbisBrowser[edit]

Browser for mobile phones. Article written by user:IbisBrowser. Is it notable? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 11:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SorryGuy Talk 06:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I believe this is notable. We do have things like Internet Explorer on wikipedia, but IbisBrowser for now will have to wait. The second half the article is unreferenced and the article needs serious revision. The article has problems with jargon, reading like an advertisement in parts, and possible POV statements which could be removed. However I do have concerns with the user editing the article under the same name (IbisBrowser Talk} as the article which draws questions if the person is employeed by the company. Which could explain why it reads a little like an advertisement. The persons main contributions are to this article, which is a little more alarming. There has been a lot of work done on this article, however I don't think there is a significant amount of interest to make this notable. -Jahnx (talk) 06:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article is referenced with multiple reliable sources attesting to its notablity. The user name of the creator makes no difference, judge the content for what its worth. Who cares about the intentions of the creator (horrors upon horrors, he wants to gain some sort of advantage from a Wikipedi article!). --brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I was 50/50 on this article but you make a good point. -Jahnx (talk) 08:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well referenced article. Never heard of it myself but that doesn't mean it isn't notable. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 14:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above Carter | Talk to me 16:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation if more sources are found. Mr.Z-man 23:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woldemar (Peter) Petri[edit]

I see evidence of patents but no evidence of his bridges or having written about them. A google search with either name doesn't turn up any evidence of his work either. Fails WP:V and WP:N unless sources can be found. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 05:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. notable. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article needs multiple independent sources to meet basic criteria for WP:BIO. -Jahnx (talk) 08:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Needs to be more notable than this. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 14:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given the information in that obit, there are in fact independent sources though they havent yet been specified; in any case, his engineering work would be notable. He was incidentally not notable as a researcher--he was an adjunct professor, but as an engineer. Google of course is irrelevant for an engineer working in the period 1953-1977. It's time people learned to stop nominating using that basis. DGG (talk) 20:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, it's not irrelevant. If his name were connected with a bridge it would probably still be mentioned. Example: Brooklyn Bridge, Verrazano Bridge and Golden Gate Bridge. There's nothing other than the obit as an engineer or with bridge. What makes this engineer notable? We're supposed to take the obit claims on merit? Obits are often written by someone close to the deceased unless it's a famous person and there's not necessarily significant fact checking. WP:V is an issue. This search] is a little better, but not much. Without verification, there's no proof the claims are true. The onus is on the article creator to source the claims, and an obit connected to the university isn't necessarily independent. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 21:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP is not yet complete. absence from mention in a WP articles is not proof of non-notability. Adding articles like this is how we will correct the situation.DGG (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bridges and civil engineering get written about a lot. Nothing on the web doesn't surprise me. Nothing in Google Books, Google Scholar, or various other searches of academic databases I've done does surprise me, though. IMO if he'd done anything notable in engineering there'd be stuff somewhere. Heck, the guy was an adjunct professor; being in academia, I'm sure he could have even written stuff himself, but I see absolutely nothing. Note that there is an economist by the name of Peter Petri, who I'm sure is not the same person - most search results that find under that name are for the economist. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - his full name appears to be Woldemar Reinhold Petri. I can find what seems to be 4 patents through google scholar. He has a prize named after him now but this is not a great claim as it was from a bequest in his will. There is probably more than this but his surname is common, there are other scholars called Petri out there (one is WR Petri in chemistry), and the kettle has just boiled - Peripitus (Talk) 00:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per DGG. --David Shankbone 02:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No clear assertion of notability per WP:BIO & Morven's comments above. Eusebeus (talk) 00:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Article" is devoid of any non-trivial information. Fails WP:V. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all roads lead to that one, unsigned obit. I take DGG's point about the limitations of Google for years gone by. However, if the guy had done all the things the obit claims surely someone would have written about him subsequently? For me, there is a failure of WP:V. What is probably needed is a local, library search. The page can be recreated if sources are subsequently found. TerriersFan (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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 G4 recreated material previoulsy closed at afd. (non-admin) brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Barr[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Article was deleted on its previous (third) nomination. Notability of player hasn't increased since. Dudesleeper / Talk 05:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per G4 This doesn't have to through an afd every few weeks. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:54, 23 February 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. Davewild (talk) 20:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Harley Worthington[edit]

Whether his name is David Harley Worthington or David Haley Worthington or if you eliminate the middle name and filter, there's no evidence of his existence to pass WP:MUSIC. Sounds as if he's played lots of small town gigs/bands. Travellingcari (talk) 05:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:MUSIC. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. -Jahnx (talk) 08:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. SingCal 01:09, 29 February 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. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 19:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Arts Collective[edit]

WP CORP: Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found.A search shows evidence of activities at YAC, but no evidence of notability. Travellingcari (talk) 04:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:ORG (barely not a speedy). --brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:ORG states that "The organization’s longevity, size of membership, or major achievements, or other factors specific to the organization may be considered." This organization clearly demonstrates substantive local notoriety, and their longevity and impact on the community has been noted. That meets the criteria. • Freechild'sup? 14:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete On re-reading WP:ORG it fails notability. • Freechild'sup? 17:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass WP:ORG in my opinion, and the article doesn't really assert any notability. I'm not sure what the previous voter means by "longevity", as the article says they've been around for 7 years: I know D&D games that have been running longer than that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG; activities are local in scope and the sources cited do not show substantial coverage -- they are events listings, passing mentions, or non-reliable sources. Jfire (talk) 17:24, 25 February 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. Davewild (talk) 20:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zanoisect[edit]

I see: no evidence of RS coverage, a number of of blog hits and fan sites, a vanity label, evidence of COI. What I don't see is any evidence he passes WP:MUSIC Travellingcari (talk) 04:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no reilable sources attest to significant notability. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Carter | Talk to me 16:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William R. Cady[edit]

Ran for office, but didn't win. Autobiography of 99.9% unencyclopedic content that asserts enough notability to avoid a speedy. Fails WP:BIO Travellingcari (talk) 03:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete failed candidate, inadequate WP:N. JJL (talk) 04:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Exactly, just enough to avoid a speedy. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow, according to the link, he got a whopping 1% of the vote. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An admirable citizen but hardly notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bridgwater Bay (TV Series)[edit]

Does not cite sources and it looks like there are absoultely no sources to support the claims made in this page. A person has asked the creator about sources on thier talk page however recicved no response. Printer222 (talk) 03:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 11:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete couldn't find any sources. At best, it could exist in future; at worst, this is fictitious. Murtoa (talk) 11:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - what utter fictitious tosh. -- Lenky (talk) 13:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't find anything to back this up Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 13:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:V. Pburka (talk) 20:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, smells hoaxy. Nothing on Kate Ritchie or Rachael Carpani's IMDB profiles to indicate that they're working on this. If it is real, then it can be re-created easily enough once more reliable sources surface. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:03, 27 February 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 00:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology and sex[edit]

This article is totally original research. There is no evidence, or even a claim made by a secondary source, that L Ron Hubbard's crazy opinions on sex are the basis of anyone else's views or behavior. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Scientology is notable, whether we like it or not. The article isn't Original Research, but it could use some more Wikipedia:Reliable sources. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are 400 WP articles on Scientology. We would be fine without this one. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we would be fine without this one. However the arguments used to open this Afd don't stand up to review. If there is consensus, perhaps you could work on merging the page as appropriate. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 14:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup, perhaps merge with homosexuality and Scientology. There is decent sourcing here, and the OR can be removed as there may be some WP:SYNTH here.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perfectly fine article. Perhaps could be merged into something else but there is quite enough there for a seperate article. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 14:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are many similar articles relationg to various religious organizations and how they are related to sex Carter | Talk to me 16:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and I think Homosexuality and Scientology should be merged into it. Clearly notable and relevant. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 23:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it's bizarre that we have an article on Scientology and sex, but none on Christianity and sex, Islam and sex, or Judaism and sex, despite the fact that all of those religions have had influence over more people by orders of magnitude than Hubbard's cult, and views on sexuality have been a part of religious debate within them for centuries. *** Crotalus *** 11:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP does have articles on these, very important, topics. They might be under different titles. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, do not merge. -- Though the article relies a bit too heavily on primary sources, there are enough secondary sources, and the topic itself is broad enough to assert notability. Cirt (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: -- The editor who started this AfD previously nominated the Featured Article, Xenu for deletion - the result was "Speedy Keep", he also nominated the Good Article, ScienTOMogy for deletion, the result of that discussion was "Keep". In both cases, I highly encourage you to read comments about the inappropriateness of those AfD nominations, in both AfD discussions - particularly in light of the above comment by Nicholas Perkins (talk · contribs), "However the arguments used to open this Afd don't stand up to review". Cirt (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In a discussion of the notability of a similar article, Homosexuality and Scientology, on that article's talk page (a discussion also started by Steve Dufour (talk · contribs)) issues of WP:POINT were raised by ChrisO (talk · contribs). DIFF That discussion thread is a worthwhile read, in the context of an AfD and notability discussion on an article on a similar topic. Cirt (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These series of time-wasting nominations are usually co-incident with issues in other articles involving a Salt Lake City resident. See also: User_talk:AndroidCat#Possible_deal AndroidCat (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the terms of the deal I can not nominate any more Project Scientology articles for deletion right now. Too bad since there are about 400 of them, which is about 360 or so too many for the importance of the topic. (p.s. WP should not have an article on Xenu any more than it should have one on Bulbasaur, also a featured article.) (p.p.s. My bad. Bulbasaur's featured status has been removed. I guess the Pokemon community on WP is growing up. In marked contrast to the Scientology/anti-Scientology community.) Steve Dufour (talk) 00:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how notability is determined on Wikipedia. Time and time again Steve Dufour (talk · contribs) has tried to make this argument, at times being called out by others for WP:POINT disruption in the process (as mentioned already below). See for example DIFF where he complains about Portal:Scientology, which later became a Featured Portal, and more from that thread. Then there is also this thread Scientology overcovered? - It's a long thread. How many times will this user bring up this idea of "overcovered", again and again and again, before realizing that notability is determined on an individual case by case basis, as per the criteria at WP:NOTE, and that this type of discussion is WP:POINT disruption? Cirt (talk) 01:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, do not merge. Religious viewpoints on various subjects are perfectly legitimate topics for discussion and this particular topic seems to be very much along the lines of existing articles concerning other religious groups - Christian views on contraception is the closest equivalent I know of. (See Category:Christian viewpoints for many more similar articles.) Homosexuality and Scientology shouldn't be merged into it; there's a whole series of similarly-titled "religion and homosexuality" articles (see Template:Religion and homosexuality). -- ChrisO (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability of subject is seemingly established by sourcing, and although it might, possibly, be considered reasonable to combine the content with the Homosexuality and Scientology page, such could be potentially disruptive of the links to that article elsewhere. I acknowledge that, at this length, it is potentially possible that the content could be merged to another article, but we have roughly 2 million other articles about which the same thing could be said, and I don't see anywhere near that many merger proposals. However, perhaps in time, such a merger with another article might be considered, depending on the development of the article at that time. John Carter (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ChrisO. Robertissimo (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is definitely a keeper. It is notable insofar as how scientology officially views sex.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 23:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the above, and to keep to the origional AFD, I don't see it as origional reserch, it does need secondaries...but it is based on primary sources, and not unsourced observations about scientologists talking about sex.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:15, 27 February 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. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 19:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keeley Dorsey[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Neutral As per whatever the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mickey Renaud (2nd nomination) is. I don't want to restate much and much of my arguement is there. I view it as heavily biased to keep this aticle and delete Renaud, considering the fact that the one main notability factor of each is their deaths. Editor of the wiki 03:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily close debate. This nomination appears to be no more than WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. No two people are alike, and binding two different articles to the same outcome is ridiculous. There have already been two debates on this article. Give it a rest and let this ride for a time. 220.253.70.211 (talk) 03:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The two peopleare alike in the way that they were junior athletes whe died -- and very little else, in the case of Dorsey. BTW, how many times did it take toget Daniel Brandt deleted? Editorofthewiki 03:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't realize we were keeping score. A better question might be how many times were the same arguments rehashed over and over again, before the proponents of keeping foo-bar-article got tired of defending it?. Neier (talk) 08:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree this is nothing more than a WP:OTHERSTUFF nom, I have to agree with the nom in that this person never played at the professional level therefore should fail WP:BIO. On those grounds, delete. Travellingcari (talk) 03:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My heart goes out to his family and friends, but Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - bad faith nomination, and still meets WP:BIO as there are multiple RS with significant coverage, and this person (as covered under athlete criteria) played at the top level of amateur American style football, Div. I college football. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How does "he was not a major recruit" translate into "played at the top level"?--brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly as I wrote: "played at the top level of amateur American style football, Div. I college football." As in he played Division I football, and that is the highest amateur level of that sport. It's not Heisman Trophy winners only, its anyone who has played Div. I football if they also have the coverage in RS, as you can read all about at WP:BIO. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I personally don't have any objection to keeping this article, but only if Renaud gets one as he did much more than this guy. If the afd closes as a keep, I will close this as nominator. If it doesn't, than the discussion will go on. Editorofthewiki 15:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - As someone else pointed out, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies to your argument. An article on Renaud (I'm not even aware of who this person is/was) would need to be considered on its own merits and not just because this one was kept (or even not kept). Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 23:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whilst he played at the top level of amateur American football, the top level of American football is professional, so not notable per WP:BIO Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 14:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Never played at a professional level, and while it's sad that he died young, Wikipedia is very specifically NOT a memorial. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since he never played professionally, he would need to have won some major awards at the collegiate level like a Hank Gathers to be notable. Patken4 (talk) 16:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial, and this is not Len Bias. Quale (talk) 03:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - was notable; is notable. Was verifiable; is verifiable. Neier (talk) 08:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Did not play professionally, the fact that the top level of american football is professional trumps that he played amateur football. -Djsasso (talk) 15:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where in WP:BIO does it say that? Aboutmovies (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Probably the same place that is says the highest level of amateur competition is good enough when there are higher levels aka professional. :P It is no more of an iterpretation of WP:BIO than your assertion is. -Djsasso (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In my opinion, guidelines for Wikipedia:WikiProject College football override WP:BIO and WP:N (although it can be argued that the article meets the criteria for both). Either WP:N guideline should be rewritten to conform to the Project, or the project should be MfD, and that I would never support. It can't be both ways—besides, the article is properly sourced after all. MrPrada (talk) 00:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then I would suggest joining the debate that I listed at the top. As I have very few objections to keeping this article I'm probebly going to have to close this as the nominator. Editor of the wiki 00:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, wikiproject guidelines never trumps policy. Secret ^account 01:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd have to agree to disagree. WP:N is a guideline as well, and Wikiprojects have their own guidelines for notability. Occasionally they are contrarian, in this case, they aren't, so I'm keeping my keep. MrPrada (talk) 02:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comment in the first AFD, little used backup that sadly died, was never notable to begin with, sad but WP:BLP1E comes to affect, as the only news coverage of him was because of his death. Secret ^account 01:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except, WP:BLP1E exists for people who are in news articles that cover the person in the context of a particular event. In this case, reliable coverage about him can be found for more than the instance of his death. Coverage of the games he played in and scored make WP:BLP1E irrelevant. He is notable and received coverage for multiple reasons. Neier (talk) 13:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Playing in a college football game isn't notable, there are many thousands who did that, as for the coverage, it proves that he played but that's it, normally those type of game coverage are passing mentions, saying that he ran for xxx yards and that's it, not about the subject himself. There are not any non-passing mention sources out there that is not about his death and that's a perfect violation of WP:BLP1E Secret 21:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is not a perfect violation of WP:BLP1E. A perfect violation would be if a player with no game experience, no recruiting hype, etc had died. That player would have had no other mentions in reliable sources, and the only articles would have been about his death. That is not the case here. Without going into wikilawyer mode myself, BLP1E even says that articles on the one-shot people MAY be unwarranted (emphasis mine) not that they should be deleted. I'm not saying (or not not saying) that playing in a college game is notable. That particular decision is irrelevant here. The fact is that his death was notable, and, that BLP1E is inapplicable due to the pre-existing coverage (non-notable though it may have been). Neier (talk) 22:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - His death may have been newsworthy, but not notable. And this article isn't about his death, its about him. This very definately qualifies under the short burst of news coverage not making one notable. -Djsasso (talk) 23:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Windows Live. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Live insider club[edit]

Little evidence of RS coverage, ghits for either name don't assert any notability. Fails WP:WEB Travellingcari (talk) 03:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Windows Live. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect per above Carter | Talk to me 16:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per above — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This individual may have a claim to notability as founder of the band Vama Veche (band) and might serve as a plausible, valid redirect, but the band itself offers no independent sourcing of notability. The bio itself does not establish notability and is a source of concern with regards to WP:BLP. I have not protected the deleted page, as only one editor has evidenced a desire to vandalize here and s/he is now blocked, but protection may be necessary if the page is recreated without addressing notability and verifiability concerns, and particularly if recreated as as an attack page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tudor Chirila[edit]

Notability not established. Was previously CSDed as nonsense, given that a previous reincarnation began solely as "LOL", and a second CSD was removed on numerous occasions. The article was also PRODed at one point, but no improvements were conducted to satisfy basic notability requirements.

In an earlier state, mentioned at WP:BLP/N#Tudor Chirila, the article was rampant of BLP vios., original research and was uncited. Which was pretty much the entire page.

A general English Google query results in very few mentions, and the sources do not assert notability. The page, in its current state, states that "further information will be added soon." seicer | talk | contribs 02:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The user TheRealPitbull has posted a lot of horrible things in his first article, each and every one of them violating the Wikipedia policies. I've tried to remove the things that were untrue, some of them being directed at me. Unfortunately, he keeps putting stuff back up and I'm sick of it. Can't you do something to stop all this? Most of the stuff he said (except for the birthdate and place of birth of the artist) is nonsense. Thank you. Regards, Pinkish1 (talk) 02:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: There is a conflict of interest between TheRealPitbull and Tudor Chirila, as evidenced by this comment, where TheRealPitbull states that they are are "professional partners" and "personal friends." seicer | talk | contribs 02:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See also [29]. JNW (talk) 03:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the first ever article he wrote. His hateful words and lies are the ones that made me take action. He is NOT a friend and DOES NOT work with Tudor Chirila or his band Vama. Pinkish1 (talk) 02:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, as he is a third-billed actor in an internationally distributed film. I'm not sure the work with Vama (aka Vama Veche) is notable ~~(we don't have an article on the band)~~, but it may also be. If a user is violating BLP they can be subject to sanctions. (TheRealPitBull is courting a ban just by repeatedly removing the AFD notice.) Certainly, by claiming a relationship, we have a duty to judge him as if there were a conflict of interest, regardless. --Dhartung | Talk 03:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add the (band), so I didn't see Vama Veche (band). Whoops. This means we can redirect to the band article if need be (and probably give the redirect edit protection). --Dhartung | Talk 05:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you give the redirect edit protection, please give the pages Vama Veche (band) and http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vama_Veche_(forma%C5%A3ie) protections as well, they refer to the same band (one is in English and one in Romanian) and the user might sign up under a new username and start this changing of pages all over again, targeting those 2. Thanx. Pinkish1 (talk) 09:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Sir, all I say is you should be watching what he writes. I wish I could, but I cannot refresh the page every 2 minutes to see that he's added lies again. I'm glad his username/articles are under observation, that's all I wanted. Thank you. Pinkish1 (talk) 03:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User talk:TheRealPitbull has been indef blocked. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete without prejudice - failure to establish notability; nothing to verify. The vandalism is a tangential issue; the article is the topic under discussion. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since notability isn't clear-cut and there's major WP:BLP problems, we should play it safe and Delete+Salt. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and salt) per Brewcrewer above. We can't take chances on BLP's. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Andrew. Eusebeus (talk) 00:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N and WP:V — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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. Bearcat (talk) 01:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Vint[edit]

He never played or coached at the professional level. Publication could pass WP:BIO, however I find some false positives but none of his alleged articles. Travellingcari (talk) 02:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete College coaches can be notable without spending a minute at the professional level. This is not one of them. Not by a very wide margin. DarkAudit (talk) 02:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, doesn't satisfy WP:BIO.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:27, 23 February 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. Canley (talk) 01:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Menelaou[edit]

Contested prod. Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Can't find coverage in reliable sources; apparently hasn't done anything of note since 4th place finish in Super Idol. Which is understandable; he's still a student. Jfire (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As currently written, the article does not establish sufficient Notability or reference any Verifiable or Reliable sources. --Daddy.twins (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chetblong^{T C} 01:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jonny-m t 02:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't assert its notability well enough.--SeizureDog (talk) 02:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.JQ (talk) 03:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothwithstanding WP:BIAS (4th place finishers in American Idol get a Wikipedia article), I say Delete due to WP:BIO. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, as notable per the music criteria. Three released CDs and has recorded with more notable musicians. —αlεx•mullεr 17:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Shapiro[edit]

Tagged for speedy deletion but contains assertions of notability (i.e., famous people Shapiro has worked with), so not a speedy candidate. A full debate needed here. This is a neutral nomination. Chick Bowen 06:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am radio promoter working on new release for this artist. We expect it to chart well on national jazz radio, and would like to link to wiki page. Please do not delete article. User: C. Adams, ratster77 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratster77 (talk --Ratster77 (talk) 05:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)• contribs) 16:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Expect it to chart well" is not an indicator of present notability. See WP:CRYSTAL. I encourage you to set up a website of your own to link to. --Lquilter (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Article appears to have sufficient citations plus evidence of an extensive discography. I've put a bit of work into tidying it up. Bondegezou (talk) 11:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jonny-m t 02:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no significant coverage from coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, per WP:BIO. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. He has worked with a considerable number of notable jazz and rock artists, meets WP:V. If this is deleted, we'll have to delete things like Morris Pert and Malcolm Mortimore which is just not on.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Seems to meet WP:MUSIC through his album releases. Checks out at label website. SingCal 01:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets minimum criteria of WP:MUSIC. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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 00:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vpmi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

I deleted this article after a previous discussion at AFD but was provided further sources by the author. I'm not completely persuaded that this now demonstrates notability but its close enough that this deserves a fresh discussion. As this is a procedural nomination I abstain from an opinion Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are the sources provided by the author. The full discussion can be found at my talk page.

Martin J. Garvey (January 28, 2003). "Real-Time Access to IT Projects". Information Week.

Balachandar Ganesh; Roy Illsley; Somak Roy (November 11, 2007). "VCSonline – VPMi Professional 3.6 Technology Audit". Butler Group.

John Fontana (September 16, 2002). "Project Management Software adds management controls". Network World.

Dennis Callaghan (September 16, 2002). "Tools to Ease Collaboration". eWeek.

Marie Lingblom (February 11, 2003). "VCS Revs Up Enterprise Project Management Tools, Launches U.S. Reseller Program". CRN.

Rachel Melcer (October 3, 2002). "Small software firm helps big companies to get a grip on IT projects". St. Louis Post Dispatch.

Carolyn Green (April 4, 2003). "Virtual Communications Real Success". St. Louis Business Journal.

“PM Network Case Study: VPMi.”, PM Network July, 2007.
Buttrick, Robert (2005). The Project Workout Third Edition. Great Britain.: Prentice Hall - Financial Times. ISBN 0-273-68181-8.
Schwalbe, Kathy (2007). Information Technology Project Management Fifth Edition. Course Technology, Inc. ISBN 1-423-90145-2.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jonny-m t 02:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Need to provide a reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 03:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why isn't the article based around Virtual Communication Services, the parent company?--brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vpmi is a better search term - I recognised it instantly. Colonel Warden (talk) 04:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that what redirects are for?--brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article could stand a rewrite but the references demonstrate notability. I would redirect the company to the product in this case, and move to VPMi. --Dhartung | Talk 05:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Multiple, independent, reliable sources" -- looks like it to me. -- Renesis (talk) 03:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. This closure is no reflection on my own !vote, but rather on the obvious consensus shown by other users. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Natalee Holloway[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Just because the media fixated upon it in 2005 does not make her notable per guidelines. This story is even much less notable now than it was when the first AFD was proposed. Belicia (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unfortunately, Natalee's notability seems assured for years. 120 sources is a pretty good sign of coverage in multiple third-party sources.Kww (talk) 01:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. I agree with Kww, she's notable. Wall to wall coverage. Come on, we had an Afd debate in December, and it was ended early, conclusion was "incredibly notable", nothing has changed. This is a waste of time.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pretty good article about a sad subject. Sentimental wish to delete, but the extremely recent and extremely decisive survived AfD seems a pretty thorough measurement of consensus. Like Wehwalt I want to know: What has changed since December? BusterD (talk) 01:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everything said in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalee Holloway (2nd nomination). I'm sad to see somebody waste the community's time with yet another nomination of this article, especially so soon after the previous nom. - auburnpilot talk 02:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Aw gee, not this again. As it turns out, this non-notable story is being covered again tonight on Dateline NBC. Mandsford (talk) 02:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you combine the three debates, the vote against deletion is something like sixty to six. Is there any way to salt this?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We use consensus, not voting. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep This does seem to be a somewhat good faith nom. However, notability doesn't expire, and this person is clearly notable, with 100-plus sources about her. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Natalee Holloway disappearance per WP:BLP1E and a number of contributors to the previous AfD. "... information on the person should generally be included in the article on the event itself, unless the information is so large that this would make the article unwieldy or sources have written primarily about the person, and only secondarily about the event." Avb 02:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment During the last AFD, it was extensively discussed that this isn't the forum to decide on a move, that the article talk page (where it has been discussed), is a better place. And of course I'm aware that we don't use voting, I'm just frustrated. There is no way w should have had three AfDs on this, and I wish there was some way to prevent a fourth.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the relevant policies. "The page is then either kept, merged and/or redirected, transwikied (copied to another Wikimedia project), renamed/moved to another title, userfied to the creator's user page or user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy." Thank you. Avb 03:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I have of course read them. That was the discussion on the second AfD. Was I inaccurate?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to assume that a prior discussion on a prior AfD trumps the AfD policy. Once again, after an AfD discussion and assessment by the closing admin, "the page is (...) renamed/moved to another title (...) or deleted per the deletion policy." Avb 03:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that is a common misapplication of WP:BLP1E. WP:BLP1E never says a word about the title of an article, and Natalee Holloway is already in full compliance with anything it actually does say. - auburnpilot talk 02:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right to the extent that it's a common application. You may want to consider the meaning of "information on the person should generally be included in the article on the event itself". Is this an article on Natalee Holloway, or an article on her disappearance? Avb 03:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Is this an article on Natalee Holloway, or an article on her disappearance? " I assume you've read the article and can answer that for yourself. If not, then I assure you it is about the case itself. That does not, however, mean the article should be moved. To quote myself from a previous discussion, "There are dozens of articles all over Wikipedia, where the article resides at the name of the person who is the subject of whatever action the article discusses (whether it be a murder, kidnapping, or disappearance). For examples of what I'm talking about, see Category:Murdered American children." Of course I've read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS as well, but there is certainly a precedent for articles to remain at a title such as Natalee Holloway. - auburnpilot talk 03:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a rhetorical question; it should be clear that I want the article moved because I believe it is about the case, not about the person. I am glad you agree that this is an article about the NH case and repeat: "... information on the person should generally be included in the article on the event itself".

Precedents are not a very useful concept when it comes to WP consensus. Arguments might carry over from one consensus to another; the consensus itself does not. In view of your arguments here (which I do not find convincing at all, especially after rereading WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS) you may want to consider the number of articles that follow my interpretation vs. the number that follow yours.

FWIW, I don't think the issue is all that important. What irritates me are ex cathedra statements to the effect that I am misapplicating policy. I am not; my interpretation is a mainstream one, your interpretation is less common (although it certainly has its supporters). Why don't you simply state that your interpretation of the policy differs from mine? Avb 03:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We agree on two things: (1) It isn't all that important and (2) our interpretation of the wording on WP:BLP1E seems to differ greatly. Maybe a discussion on the talk page of WP:BLP1E to clarify the wording is in order. - auburnpilot talk 03:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As irrelevant and non-notable as this "dead white girl" (as one of my friends put it) should be, the media's fixation with her has made her notable. Wikipedia just collects the information; we don't pass judgment on it. (Though if ever there were a reason to start...) -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 03:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Article is notable and the news has continued to fixate on her for years. In addition, with two previous AfDs closed with a Keep, this AfD certainly should qualify as a speedy keep, especially considering the absolute lack of input for deletion. scetoaux ^{(talk) (My contributions.)} 03:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Article has received extensive news coverage. I'm watching a special on her as I type this.. and it's not 2005.. so I guess it is still receiving news coverage. Save-Me-Oprah^(talk) 03:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move to Disappearance of Natalee Holloway. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:58, 23 February 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. Davewild (talk) 19:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver Aquatic Centre[edit]

No evidence of RS coverage and ghits don't assert any notability. State of the art at opening probably avoids a speedy, but there's nothing special about this pool. Travellingcari (talk) 02:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a pool. And? There's nothing here that makes it any more notable than any other pool in Vancouver. Or even Morgantown. DarkAudit (talk) 02:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, unnnotable. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as poolcruft. Eusebeus (talk) 00:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 21:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another One Bites the Dust (1998 song)[edit]

The covered song has already been noted in the original song's article, Another One Bites the Dust. Kodster (talk) 02:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In order for this song to be notable, it has to have objective evidence from independent sources (as per the Notability Wikipedia Guidelines). The 1998 song has no objective evidence stating that it is notable, and thus should be deleted. Feel free to post on my talk page. Thanks.--Kodster (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, The thing is guys, the cover is already mentioned in the original article. There's no point of keeping it, no matter how "notable" it is. If it's already mentioned, having a separate article is redundant and counterintuitive. See versions of Another One Bites the Dust for clarification.
Delete, department of redundancy department. Travellingcari (talk) 02:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The lyrics to the Wyclef Jean rap song are substantially different from the Queen original, although the chorus is the same. One might as well merge "Ice Ice Baby" to "Under Pressure" Mandsford (talk) 02:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Mandsford. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, do not merge. The song is independently notable as per WP:MUSIC and is quite different from the original Queen version, as noted. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reading WP:MUSIC makes me believe this song is not notable. Being a top ten hit in of itself is not notable. This version just brings more notability to the original. --Wolfer68 (talk) 08:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:MUSIC says "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts [...] are probably notable." This song, as the remix, has ranked on two national top ten lists, and was the artist's third song to have done so. This song, as the remix, also appeared in a notable film. We have sources to verify that information, so it has and demonstrates notability outside of the original Queen version. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - But it also says, "A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". While the information is verifiable, the article is not reasonably detailed.--Wolfer68 (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there was more information maybe, but there's no information here that can't be incorporated into the Another One Bites the Dust page, where this cover is already mentioned. And regardless of how much it is different, it's still credited as a Queen song. --Wolfer68 (talk) 03:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although the words are different, since it seems like this one was based on Another One Bites the Dust, it can be merged into the latter.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep probably notable on its own, though I would prefer to see it redirected to the original. JJL (talk) 05:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not just a cover, it's a remix, and it was a top-ten charting hit. I think that establishes independent notability. --Dhartung | Talk 05:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —86.149.53.196 (talk) 08:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge into Another One Bites the Dust. We don't usually have seperate articles for cover versions, and nor should we for remixes. The song is still credited to Queen. The analogy with "Ice Ice Baby" made above by Mandsford is patently false; that was a completely different song credited to a different artist which merely sampled the Queen song. PC78 (talk) 13:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe if you patently compared the lyrics of the two songs, you'd understand...Mandsford (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Another One Bites the Dust#Cover versions. Basically the same song; even the cover mentions Queen. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although if there's more useful information that can be merged into the main article on Queen's song, then that should also be done (I don't think there's a whole heap thereof). This is a cover of a notable song, rather than a separately notable song which happens to sample another notable song, so any Vanilla Ice analogies shouldn't be entertained here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Covers typically don't merit their own article and nothing here argues for an exception. Eusebeus (talk) 00:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Merge ?) : the song was charted in many countries, such as France, Switzerland, Austria, Belgium, Norway, New Zealand, Finland, Sweden, Netherlands... Notable. Europe22 (talk) 03:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Information contained in the article about the song is certainly notable, but would be better served in putting it as a version of the original. A redirect could be used to point to that section of the article. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Agree that the remix is notable, but disagree that a separate article is necessary to document that. Most of this information is already in Another One Bites the Dust. The rest can easily be added there. The fact that lyrics may have been altered doesn't seem persuasive to me. That fact can be noted in the parent article as well. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. Core desat 03:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Until My Death (Quan album)[edit]

Fails Wikipedia:Music#Albums_and_songs: Unreleased albums ("not yet released" = unreleased) are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fail WP:MUSIC and WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Quan (rapper). --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:42, 23 February 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. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supernova Worm[edit]

A low-risk virus with almost no RS coverage depending on name. Ghits primarily concern how to disinfect, no evidence of notability for this worm. Travellingcari (talk) 01:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom this worm does not appear to be a widespread problem and so has little notability - Dumelow (talk) 13:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; Wikipedia's not a malware database. Jfire (talk) 07:01, 29 February 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 0.0 Speedy delete as nonsense by User:East718, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ಠ ಠ[edit]

Page seems to consist of no meaningful content (not sure if this is speedyable) , and also unsourced. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 01:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy and so tagged, it's nonsense. Apparently mock spectacles? Travellingcari (talk) 01:40, 23 February 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. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supybot[edit]

Plenty of ghits but they're forum discussions, howtos, and blogs. None appear to assert any notability. Travellingcari (talk) 01:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable software. Jfire (talk) 02:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 21:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surf Berkeley[edit]

21 copies of what appears to be the same directory listing!notability and unable to verify store's dubious claim to notability. Travellingcari (talk) 01:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, notability per WP:CORP unestablished. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable local store. Jfire (talk) 07:00, 29 February 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. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 21:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flintlocke's Guide to Azeroth[edit]

This article has been tagged with the notability tag since November 2007. Since then, no attempt has been made to establish notability. Rockfang (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tons and tons and tons of plot summary, but very little about the comic's notability. Even if notability is established, the plot summary needs to be trimmed a lot. Zetawoof_(ζ) 01:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article doesn't establish real-world notability. (It also looks like a link-farm, with over 90 links to this one website).--brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't assume malice in the overlinking. As far as I can tell, they were mainly trying to cite all the plot points to specific comics. I can't fault article authors too heavily for adding references, even if they're a little excessive here. Zetawoof_(ζ) 04:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Editors did "attempt to establish notability" in Talk. I found 825 ghits for ("Flintlocke's Guide to Azeroth" -wikipedia). This is about a webcomic and most sources I could find are blogs, wikis, forums, etc., with lots of expression of regret that it had been cancelled, but I did find [30], a newspaper source. There have been about 360 edits to the article since it was created as a stub two years ago, with many different editors. On creation as a very brief stub, it was immediately proposed for deletion. Since then, massively expanded. A lot of work on the line. As to links, this is a webcomic maintained on a single web site and, naturally, when something from the comic is described, there is a note linking to the episode involved. It's all verifiable in that sense. I'm disturbed by the loss of good-faith efforts by so many editors if this is deleted.--Abd (talk) 04:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "I do believe this comic meets the notability guidelines, especially for a webcomic. However, I can't produce any specific proof..." (User:Dreadknot69, on Talk:Flintlocke's Guide to Azeroth) Google hits are not notability. Even if they were, 825 is not very many. Can you point to any reliable sources which discuss the comic which are independent from the comic itself? Zetawoof_(ζ) 07:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, there was one source which rated this webcomic compared to others, it was in the middle of the pack. How reliable was it? Should we require that sources be peer-reviewed academic journals? This is a genre where there is a lot of activity. On the internet. Mostly informally organized, it seems. I didn't look further into that rating site, but it's possible it could be considered relatively reliable. It was pretty clearly independent.--Abd (talk) 06:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As much as it contains a lot of information, there's only a single notable reference. This would be a great article for a fansite or repository for Warcraft related information, but I don't think it's suitable here.Gazimoff (talk) 12:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gazimoff who demonstrates that this article meets the requirements set out in Wikipedia:Verifiability, a policy which Wikipedia:Notability purportedly supports but apparently in this instance contradicts. Where policy and guidance conflict, I believe it is the case that policy is preferred. Hiding T 18:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My only point was that while the content is indeed verifiable (by linking to the webcominc episodes in question repeatedly), is it notable? I could only find one external secondary reference on this as others have mentioned above, although it has recieved extensive coverage in World of Warcraft fansites and Warcraft-related websites in general. I'm happy to defer to the guidance of others though, as I'm most definately a newbie in this areaGazimoff (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:V only requires the one. Hiding T 23:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You do raise a good point there. WP:V is a policy (which means it does have to be followed), and it does say that information does require a reliable source to be included, but one thing it does NOT say is how many sources are required for an article to be kept. Reliable sources serve to make information verifiable, according to Wikipedia policy. Note also that the WP:RS page also states that it serves the verifiability policy, which as you point out, does not have a specific requirement on number of sources (beyond a minimum of one). Note that I've seen a number of editors in deletion debates stating that reliable sources are linked to notability. Note that nowhere on the WP:RS page do the words "notability" or "notable" appear, and "notability" only appears once on the WP:V page, and only then in reference to self-published and questionable sources. The WP:N page, which is a policy and not a guideline, does seem to differ a bit, but as you say Policies do take preference over Guidelines. BOZ (talk) 03:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Within the WoW fanbase this comic certainly has notability, enough that Blizzard gave a nod to it by naming a game item after the comic. That's irrelevant though as the dozens of WoW-related article deletions attest to. Abd did a great job digging up that reference. But I still think it isn't enough. While WP:N is a guideline, it's a very important one and it does state "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources". I don't know if the OC Register is a "quality" source or not, but it merely mentions the comic so the "depth of coverage" is certainly lacking. It's not like it's an article about the Flintlocke comic. If other such sources were found or at least one that gives more than a passing mention to the comic I'd change my mind and give this a "keep" vote. By the way, I'm also a fan of Flintlocke's Guide to Azeroth, and I've read every comic (I love Lowping) but as an objective editor I can't justify keeping this article. -- Atama ^chat 02:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seeing as this is my article, I suppose I better comment. I'm not purposing a Keep simply because it is my article. That'd be contradictory to Wikipedia's NPOV policies. Instead, look at it like this. There are countless things on Wikipedia that likely just barely meet notability guidelines. The mere fact that a company referenced the webcomic in a major game played by millions is notability enough for me. Prior to that I'd have hesitated even making the article. Stormscape 23:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets minimum criteria...I mean minimum. It could really use a cleanup though. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not an internet guide. We have no verifiable information on historical significance or impact, and with only a paragraph in a newspaper as a source, we really don't have the sources to meet our neutrality policy, or to meet our notability guideline, or to create an encyclopedia article. --Dragonfiend (talk) 07:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are not enough sources to verify the notability of this comic. I agree with Dragonfiend. I am sympathetic to Stormscape's position that mention in the game adds notability, but I don't feel it offers enough notability to establish an article. It may be worth a mention (but not a merge) in the game article. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The 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 --Step hen 05:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pop Singers[edit]

Unmanageable as a list. The corresponding categories for American, Canadian and English pop singers alone contain over a thousand names. So we're looking at something like 2000 names on the list and growing. Sublists by era, by country, by subgenre or any combination of the above might be doable and worthy of articles. To top it off, this list is actually sorted by first name which seems pretty absurd. Pichpich (talk) 00:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is going to be a very unmanageable list, even if someone actually does re-alphabetize it by surname. (Why is that such a hard concept anyway?) "Pop" is such an overused term for a musical genre anyway -- are 95% of the country music singers out there "pop" just because 95% of country music crosses over to the Hot 100? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unmanageable and far too broad in its scope. PC78 (talk) 01:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with that stupid List of stand-up comedians and then delete both of them. The contrast between the discussions on these two lists is surprising; the consensus for the comedians list so far is a keep, even though it's even less manageable than this one. I like how Marvin Gaye is listed as "currently inactive". Seems that's been true since 1984, and it's unlikely that he'll be making a comeback in this world. Mandsford (talk) 02:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. But Mandsford's idea looks equally attractive haha. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Pichpich. The genre of "pop" is not sufficiently defined to make this list worth keeping. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could pop singers be ones who endorse soft drinks? Oh wait, that list would still be 50 miles long... Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unmaintainable as a list, too large to be useful. If pop singers need to be collected, smaller more focussed lists or categories would be better; these probably already exist. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that if they do, I would have no problem with an article like Lists of pop singers listing these focused lists. Pichpich (talk) 22:12, 23 February 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 00:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Attig[edit]

Tagged for speedy deletion for notability issues. I do not know much about the field of journalism however this persons seems to have a number of awards, according to the article, which may make him notable? Even know the parents "Knights Fellowship" article is non notable and was deleted. SGGH ^speak! 00:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It says he is an editorial writer and I know editorials are a big part of a newspaper and that the newspaper he writes for is a very big newspaper in Oregon (it has its own article, by the way, if you need more info). I might be wrong and there might be fifty editorial writers, making him not necessarily notable, but I still think the article deserves some sort of fighting chance. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 00:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definite Keep - Guy won the Pulitzer as shown here [31]. That in itself establishes notability. However, agree with nominator - article is definitely in need of a rewite. Shoessss | Chat 00:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pulitzer confirmation, article still needs a re-write and I'm not familiar enough to do so. Travellingcari (talk) 01:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. some pole-vaulter with the same name gets in the way of his ghits, but his confirmed awards make him notable. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:28, 23 February 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. нмŵוτн τ 23:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu Youth[edit]

Like this, there are hundreds of religious organization available in Western and European countries. Google hits show only its own official web source and fail to establish its notability. NAHID 08:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree – could find no information other than site posted in article. Shoessss | Chat 00:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would explain my reason for deletion, but all the information needed has already been said. Only info is on website and it seems it does not have much notability. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 00:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notabiliy unestablished per WP:ORG. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article currently states: "Hindu Youth" is a term often used to describe a host of youth organizations for Hindu students and young adults... That's too broad a topic to be an article under this name. The article is really about only one of those organizations, Hindu Youth Network, but only has one source, the organization's own web site. If the HYN is later established to be notable and external sources are found, an article about that particular organization could be re-created later. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG. It says its events are "fun and engaging" but doesn't make clear what they actually do or whether it has any considerable impact on the rest of the world. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Metropolitan, non-notable.--Aldux (talk) 21:40, 23 February 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. нмŵוτн τ 23:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Life Circle[edit]

Non notable student film from student film makers which fails notability criteria NAHID 08:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as per nom SGGH ^speak! 00:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I have found several references as shown here [32] that could make a case for notability. However, by my standards, not quite there yet. If more secondary sources and a more noteworthy source can be provided, you could change my opinion very easily. Shoessss | Chat 00:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. per this and this. Not sure, however, if that's considered substantial coverage per WP:BIO. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A student film would have to be really really really special to have an article. This isn't. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per above Antonio Lopez ^(talk) 21:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is part of a determined campaign of self-promotion by the director Malaka Dewapriya under his usernames Malakadew (talk · contribs), Srilanka short film (talk · contribs) and Srilankan short film (talk · contribs), all now blocked. JohnCD (talk) 21:50, 24 February 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 with the caveat of needing cleanup and sourcing, tagged as such. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack_Groselle[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Neither notable nor objective, biographical — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mervyturp (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bearcat (talk) 01:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Gets a fair amount of ghits, article does establish some sort of notability, but I can't seem to find substabtial coverage from secondary indepenant sources...... Lack of objectivity is not a basis for deletion. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - swim coach and record holder, WP:RS:some cites, show notability. Clean it up. Bearian (talk) 00:23, 26 February 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 Delte, although a small consensus. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 02:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shane MacDougall[edit]

Lack of Notability and references. Ourmangwynn (talk) 13:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bearcat (talk) 01:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I just merged and redirected Wiener Takes All: A Dogumentary to this article, as that had no notability on its own. I'm not sure of the notability of this dude. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GreenJoe 12:02, 23 February 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John McCain lobbyist controversy[edit]

Delete "Controversy" page, inherent NPOV, rumours about living people Will ^(talk) 19:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Times' article is quite long and most readers seem to have not gotten to the end of it where the non-rumour important stuff is like: "Ms. Iseman acknowledged in an e-mail message to The Times that she had sent to Mr. McCain’s staff information for drafting a letter urging a swift decision. Mr. McCain complied. He sent two letters to the commission, drawing a rare rebuke for interference from its chairman." There have been multiple additional reliable sources reporting this aspect. McCain's people have not denied this part of the story and this part (including the FCC Chairman's rebuke of McCain for interference)is completely verifiable. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 19:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete i tend to agree. the controversy does deserve/require mention in John McCain, but the depth of this controversy is not genuinely significant. So far, it is nothing more than allegations, none substantial. the ethics issues are real, but absent verifiable evidence that said ethics have been breached, it's mostly coatracking. Anastrophe (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed. ITs just using wikipedia to "smear" someone and reeks of the stench of bias. Delete this nonsense. Wikipedia is not the Enquirer

Wikipedia isn't the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal either. This is verified information from reliable sources. What part of policy is this violating besides the POV that it is "gossip" and "smear"? It does not state that McCain did such and such. It states that the NYT reported that McCain did such and such or that aides feared that this and that happened. Third party sources, just as WP likes 'em. ∴ Therefore | talk 19:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coatracking? "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related bias subject." Please discuss how this page is nominally discussing the lobyist controversy but instead is a cover for something else? This page uses nothing but very reliable sources and written neutrally. Absent verifiable evidence? Of what? We are not reporters. We add in verifiable information from reliable sources written in a neutral tone. This is an expansion of what is written in the McCain articles -- as is usually done via WP:SEEALSO] when the detail is best left to its own article. Where in this article (I'm not the primary author -- I added in the criticisms against The New York Times) that it is written with an editor's POV? ∴ Therefore | talk 19:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the article exists precisely to confer greater weight to this "controversy" than it would otherwise have. thus, coatracking. the fact that it pertains to a WP:BLP further suggests that moving it out of the BLP assists in getting past what would otherwise not fly in a BLP. if the material would be considered inappropriate in full detail within the mccain article, then why is it appropriate here. this entire controversy - and the controversy article - can be summarised in about a five sentence paragraph in the mccain article, where it will have appropriate weight, and not dance around BLP requirements. this also very much bumps up into the 'controversies section/article' problem. Anastrophe (talk) 19:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see your understanding reflected in the WP:COATRACK essay. Neither the text nor the examples seem to apply. Help relieve my confusion.

There is no inherent bias in this article. Just as in many other places in Wikipedia, it expands on the verifiable detail. Have you been to the McCain article recently? It's extremely long with editors calling for off-loading detail to "See Also" sections. There is a fork to "Main article: Political positions of John McCain". Are you arguing that this is a coatrack because the full detail would be inappropriate? No, it's there to keep a summary discussion and the interested reader may visit the detailed page. Same here. The page in question isn't POV, isn't biased, isn't a sneaky attempt to do things that wouldn't be allowed on the McCain page, but is an expansion on the subject. Where in this page is there bias, the requirement of being a coatrack? ∴ Therefore | talk 19:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

there is bias in the article's existence. perhaps my understanding of coatracking is deficient; i'll look into it, thank you. that said, there is a fairly strict argument made that having controversy sections and forked controversy articles are discouraged for BLP's, because of the fact that they become dumping grounds for POV pushes that would never fly within the body of a BLP. on that basis, i maintain that this is such a fork. the mccain article is in fact not extremely long; instead, it has many template transclusions and a plethora of citations, which bog down page rendering. since there's barely more than three direct RS's used to support the entire controversy article (the remainder are meta sources about the controversy itself), adding a short para to the mccain article with the few necessary details will not bog down the article at all. Anastrophe (talk) 20:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI thought you were in favor of sending readers from the McCain article over here? Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 03:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I defer to you about its length; I'm not a page editor but saw a discussion here. If this page has POV problems, then let us fix them. My efforts have focused on deleting non-reliable sources (Huffington Post, Drudge), adding in contrary evidence to the body (e.g., Daniel Schnur's observations), detailed McCain reactions and extensive criticism of The New York Times. The article appears to me to be balanced and neutral. However, if you have further POV concerns, then please let's fix that. This isn't a POV fork. ∴ Therefore | talk 20:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware there are already two paragraphs in the McCain article with a link to this one? ∴ Therefore | talk 20:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I lose patience opening the deletion log because it's too big. Nominations like these are to blame. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

shouldn't a vote have a rationale related to the issues associated, rather than matters of inconvenience? Anastrophe (talk) 19:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a chance that it will get deleted I'll give a better rationale. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I split this article out of the Vicki Iseman biography specifically to keep that page from being a coatrack biography. We have a responsibility to cover this in a sensitive, balanced and non-scandalous manner, but the controversy itself is certainly encyclopedic. It was A1 in the New York Times, for heaven's sake. FCYTravis (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain. Writing history as it happens is a fool's errand. We're all doing it, including myself, but we can't pretend that we know now whether this will turn out to be a major story with legs or a one-week blip. As a practical matter, I like having this article for now, because it relieves the frequent edit and undue weight pressure off the McCain main and campaign articles. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's pretty depressing seeing all these people quoting for deletion what is nothing else than an essay, and as such is a mere opinion like Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing. Speaking of more serious things, as noted, the issue wasn't started by a third-rate paper like Insight but by the NYT and appears to be the result of an extremely complicated investigation and elaboration. The topic also, it may be found interesting to know, has been considered certainly notable abroad, as the foreign papers are giving it large space, often the first page. As for POV problems, it's just not a reason for deletion.--Aldux (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I lose patience opening the article creation log because it's too big. Articles like these are to blame. --72.209.11.186 (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now; this sub-article relieves the pressure on the main article and documents a current news item. Once this is no longer current we will know how it should be treated properly going forward. Deleting this will just mean that the John McCain article gets more editing churn. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete not because of WP:BLP or WP:COATRACK issues, but because I'm not convinced that this is other than an ephemeral news story or is of lasting encyclopedic merit. Yes, it was on page A1 of the NY Times, and there are hundreds if not thousands of stories in other sources. But it has been a story for only a couple of days, and may well be pretty much forgotten about in coming weeks or months, when there is other, fresher campaign news. I think for now it needs only a couple of sentences maximum, with citations, in John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 and in Vicki Iseman. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or news source. --MCB (talk) 22:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, you'd be against an article on Brian McNamee? Or the immediate creation of an article on Virginia Tech massacre which garnered WP positive reviews? WP:NOT#NEWS isn't some blanket prohibition against covering news items, it says:

Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article.

There is no question that his matter is notable and the sources reliable. I believe that it is written neutrally, though naturally that is up for discussion and improvement. ∴ Therefore | talk 23:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i can't speak for user MCB, but i don't see anywhere that he made the assertion that the article is prohibited, merely that it is not of "lasting encyclopedic merit". and it's not. just as what you quoted: "not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own". in six months, this controversy will be completely forgotten, in my opinion. hell, i give it two months. it's much ado about very little ado. Anastrophe (talk) 23:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep There are several thousand Google News hits on this subject, and it is being covered widely in newspapers and on television, and has even reached the British papers. The scandal does not appear to be dying down, as the NYT has doubled down and McCain (according to The Note today from ABC) has essentially gone into something of a bunker mode. Further, does anyone doubt that this will resurface again and again in the general election? This story is big now, during a time when the opposing party has other things to focus on, and cannot devote organized attention to promoting and expanding the controversy: that is to say, it's only going to get bigger and louder from here. Any merger would result in a loss of detail which is unacceptable in a story of this obvious and demonstrable importance. Further, this information was forked from the Vicki Iseman article specifically to avoid coatracking, and is hardly a coatrack itself. It is increasingly impossible to deny that this is a major, specific, self-contained series of events which will have continued and ramifying importance in American national politics. It is notable, and people will be looking to Wikipedia to have an article covering the subject. Mr. IP (talk) 23:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I'd note that the story's coverage has not waned since it first emerged - on the contrary, it seems to have increased exponentially. As we move into the general election, expect it to emerge again and again as a major flare-up, and to maintain a medium level of background prominence at all times. It is roughly equivalent to the events involving Obama and Rezko in this respect. Mr. IP (talk) 23:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wish there was a way to wager on that. i'd bet $20 in two months it's gone, gone, gone. ah well. time will tell. ;^) Anastrophe (talk) 23:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're on. Friendly bet for $20 WikiBucks. Considering McCain's love of painting himself as a maverick, and Obama's love of contrasting himself with the "Washington games" of opponents, I'm thinking it gets brought up at almost every turn. Like Rezko will. I don't think the current cycle of the story has even reached crescendo yet. We're gonna be glad we have a decent working article on this one! Mr. IP (talk) 00:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for the time being at least. Yes, Wikipedia is not for just any news stories, but this story is still ongoing and currently of great concern to at least two major newspapers; it has received comment from various important figures, as mentioned in the article, as well as McCain himself. It's too early to declare it non-notable, when we haven't seen what (if any) effect it will have on McCain's presidential campaign; we should wait at least a month or so to determine the story's long-term impact, and only then consider it for possible deletion. Terraxos (talk) 01:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And as an aside, on the issue of neutrality: I think this article is actually pretty neutral at the moment, containing as it does a 'Criticism' section and making clear that the allegations are only that - allegations. But even if it wasn't neutrally written, that would be a reason to keep and improve it, not delete it. Before anyone accuses me of wanting to keep this for political reasons, I'll point out that I argued for the keeping of a similar article about Barack Obama's 'Muslim school controversy'; while that was eventually deleted, I think it should have been kept, and I think this article should be as well. Terraxos (talk) 01:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for major politicians, these things are important and do become part of history. At this point, as the obvious Republican candidate, he will remain relevant in American political history. DGG (talk) 05:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Just because printed encyclopedias tend to be out of date doesn't mean we have to be. :) The news is quite huge right now, and I don't doubt it will be regarded as prominent in the distant future as well. No doubt this will be a controversial article, but IMO Wikipedia has become fairly good at handling high-profile current political controversies... or at least not terrible enough to merit giving up completely. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 07:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – It doesn't have a snappy name like "Lobbygate", but it's an issue being treated seriously in the press. The references are solid, and the controversy is developing a history, and therefore a context. Notable. –Yamara ✉ 14:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – It's irrelevant if there's any truth to the allegations made in the NYT article. This WP article describes a relevant, political event that people should be able to look up (like I just did myself). Schmappel (talk) 15:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, rumours have no place on Wikipedia, especially about living people. Will ^(talk) 15:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rumors don't but that is your POV characterization of this article. What belongs: verifiable statements from reliable sources written in a neutral tone. There is a difference. First, the romantic aspect, though the element getting the most press, is a small part of the whole story (and this article). The NYT said that two anonymous ex-aides of the Senator feared that he was romantically involved. The rest of the articles (including the new developments from Newsweek) involve his relationships with her clients. All of this is carefully covered in the article. If you believe there are POV problems with the article, let's fix them. ∴ Therefore | talk 18:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's a legitimate controversy. Where else do you want to put the encyclopedic information about this issue, in Vicki Iseman, which should be nothing more than the biography of her, in the article about McCain's campaign, which shouldn't have an incredibly long section about this controversy, or in John McCain, which doesn't need this as a section either? eigenlambda (talk) 20:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This issue has been discussed in multiple highly reliable sources, including The New York Times (see [33]), and The Washington Post (see [34]). Moreover, the controversy itself has been discussed in secondary sources. It will likely be a substantial issue in the campaign; if it simply fizzles out, we can always delete the article later. It clearly meets the core content policies, and I see no BLP issue with repeating what was said by major, reputable newspapers. *** Crotalus *** 00:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons explained by Wasted Time R (even though he abstained).Ferrylodge (talk) 05:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a notable controversy not only because it involves John McCain, but because there are concerns about the motives of the New York Times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.orfannkyl (talk • contribs) 14:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Because a small portion of this sub-article, specifically:"Ms. Iseman acknowledged in an e-mail message to The Times that she had sent to Mr. McCain’s staff information for drafting a letter urging a swift decision. Mr. McCain complied. He sent two letters to the commission, drawing a rare rebuke for interference from its chairman." is important as hell and actually belongs in the main BLP. Shuffling it over behind this curtain was just an accomodation to pov pushers who wanted it deleted entirely. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that aspect of the story very old news?[35] And given that's it's been known for a very long time, do reliable sources (e.g. biographies of McCain) continue to give it substantial coverage?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not the email from a lobbyist acknowledging initiating the letter McCain sent to light a fire under the FCC. Emails can be smoking guns and this one was not reported anywhere before last week. The email indicates McCain was acting on behalf of the lobbyist rather than just merely working for the good of the country as he claimed when this story first broke (about the FCC rebuke). Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems pretty clear from the link I provided that the newspapers all knew eight years ago that McCain was acting on behalf of "Paxson."Ferrylodge (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the link you provided says nothing about an email from a lobbyist to the New York Times acknowledging that a lobbyist initiated McCain's improper pressure on the FCC. That is new information and can be seen as an indicator that McCain was acting as an agent for the lobbyist and her client. That was not reported eight years ago because the email was only sent recently. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 16:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In a year's time, no one is going to care. In fact, it is already off most politico type blogs and websites. Its just feeding a ridiculous fire. Queerbubbles (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, this whole incident can be summed up in approx. 4 sentances, and can fit easily into the John McCain pres. candidacy article. Queerbubbles (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to know where this is heading. A week ago most(including me) thought this was just another meaningless sex story and would die in a day or so. The fact he's got by far the most lobbyists (59) working on his campaign could also generate further examination of his lobbyist connections over his political career and this article might be just in the beginning stage; I do,however,think those 4 sentences you refer to should be in the main BLP right now. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well see, the fact that he's got lobbyists working on his campaign should go in the campaign article. Its not a direct association with this "scandal", as much as it is with the campaign as a whole. I'm not directly involved with the McCain articles as a whole, so someone much more involved (and experienced) can go ahead and add a few sentences. ;) Queerbubbles (talk) 22:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I was one of several who suggested and supported this material removed from Vicki Iseman for new article creation; it doesn't belong there. This pagespace is the best place for this material; page watchers at John McCain don't want it merged there. BusterD (talk) 23:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

watchers at John McCain don't want it merged there Perhaps thats a sign its not notable... Queerbubbles (talk) 02:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's mainly pov pushers[[36] who don't want it merged there: nothing to do with notability. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 03:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article is well written, well balanced and NPOV (presenting both the allegations and their denials), and cited to a reliable source. Even here in England I've heard of this and came to Wikipedia to learn more, and this page fully explained the situation to me. Xmoogle (talk) 12:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact remains that it would easily go on the candidacy article instead. Its been almost a full week now, and is mostly out of the emdia. The same discussion is had at the Brit Spears talk page regarding her breakdown. It is notable, but can be summed up in a few sentances, and there shouldnt be a seperate article for it. Queerbubbles (talk) 12:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's getting stronger legs and more reliable [37] sources by the day: 50 new articles in the past 1 day alone, and the articles are concentrating more on the important influence peddling allegations and less on the sleazy sex innuendo. Maybe it's time for editors here to stop making personal crystal ball type predictions about the future of this information (and using strawman arguments to bury and minimize it) and, instead, simply provide it in its entirety in a NPOV fashion to our readers as its being reported by reliable sources. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that this isnt notable... I'm asking why this cant just be a few sentances or an enitre section in the candadacy article? Why give it its own room when in the larger scale of things, there arent many people talking about this on the TeeVees? Queerbubbles (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is an op-ed piece considered a reasonable source for wiki content? Macutty (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Story received widespread coverage. Article in question is an appropriate sub-article of the John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. — goethean ॐ 21:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Should be included in McCain's presidential campaign page but does not constitute its own article. If Norman Hsu's affair didn;t get its own page, neigther should this. The piece that is getting the air time and print space (the sex/sizzle aspect of the story) is nothing but hearsay from an anon source. Typical media reaction. Macutty (talk) 19:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The John McCain page is so long that there are problems loading the page. Despite the backlash that the NY Times provoked, there are still some very important issues not only about the perhaps dubious salacious rumors, but the more important and undisputed ties of this "maverick" to lobbyists JonErber (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are not saying the main Mccain article... rather the 2008 Mccain candidacy article. Queerbubbles (talk) 23:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and possibly rename. Ample precedent for such articles; it's the only way to give adequate coverage without overloading the main article about a candidate. Savidan 15:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am a strong McCain supporter and feel this information is beneficial to my understanding of the candidate. I don't feel that this article is detrimental to his campaign or that it is biased against him. It seems like a review of the facts surrounding the issue - which I followed closely when it came out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.216.137.110 (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete for all the reasons above. Horrendous case of recentism and a strong testament to the major ongoing problem we have here of editors who persistently conflate news stories with encyclopedic content. Eusebeus (talk) 00:25, 29 February 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 01:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pope Benedict XVI Islam controversy[edit]

we should not have "XXX controversy" articles, as they are inherently POV. Furthermore, this is going way over the top - we should not detail every statement the Pope makes. This is a prime example of WP:NOT#NEWS - hardly anything has come of it 18 months along (at least what the sources say), and is better suited to be merged into the article about the person. Will ^(talk) 19:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See old afd Will ^(talk) 19:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Do you actually think this might get deleted?--brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have an actual reason for voting Keep? Right now your comment is no nothing more than a blank Keep vote (i.e. it will basically be ignored by the closing admin). TJ Spyke 23:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems you are proposing a merger. You should do this on the Talk page of the articles in question. --Dhartung | Talk 23:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a prime example of where NOT NEWS does not apply. Major international consequences, will long be remembered as a defining moment in his bio & probably will be quoted for centuries as a general intercultural attitude; this is the sort of thing that does make history. Thousands of worldwide sources. DGG (talk) 05:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Will's argument hardly strike me as exceedingly brilliant, especially for an article that had a previous AfD closed with a speedy keep. In particular, arguments like "we should not have "XXX controversy" articles, as they are inherently POV" will hardly convince anybody, as they are pretty fringe, as showed by the ease with which these articles pass AfD when they are well sourced and concerning resounding events. And attempts to liquidate it as past news won't be very successful either: these are the news articles, [38], a number of which are very current, like in the Independent here [39].--Aldux (talk) 14:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep This article discusses historical fact. Encyclopedias include historical facts. Why try to censor this fact? Hmains (talk) 03:53, 27 February 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 01:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United States journalism scandals[edit]

inherently NPOV page which seems to list every journalistic oversight of logic, mostly about scandals about living people, at least one entry is about a page that got resoundingly deleted at AFD Will ^(talk) 19:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Add and Fact Check Article. This article is a good example of some of the major and minor scandals in our society's journalism and media function. Although the article could be improved upon by adding more sources and links that could lead readers to possible show of cases, it should not be removed entirely from publication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.84.100.80 (talk) 09:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep -- and improve the article. This article has been around for a long time, and is part or the "Journalism" project. Questions; (a) how is this article "inherently" NPOV and (b) if so, why not improve it? The Walter Annenberg scandal alone, along with numerous and highly notable modern examples, clearly justifies the existence of the article. WNDL42 (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word "scandal". You can't make NPOV out of something when its title is POV. Will ^(talk) 22:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the frequent use of the term "journalism scandal" makes inclusion here on Wikipedia appropriate. WNDL42 (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may be worth considering a move to (e.g.) List of alleged journalism scandals in the United States. --Dhartung | Talk 23:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wndl42: it doesn't. Scandal, by definition, is a negative word. And Dhartung, seriously - your solution to POV is to put weasel words in? Will ^(talk) 23:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so much for olive branches. --Dhartung | Talk 08:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a well-referenced list and deletion at AFD does not require deletion of similar material from all articles. Every time one happens there is a discussion of historically similar incidents, so this is clearly notable. The idea that such a list is inherently POV really doesn't fly. --Dhartung | Talk 23:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list is useful and the idea that it violates NPOV to call Duranty, e.g., a "scandal" boggles the mind. For some journalistic scandals the idea that it wasn't a scandal is what WP policy calls a "fringe" view. To allow more controversial designations I wouldn't mind adding "..., actual or alleged" just to make it clear that if there's a big enough fuss it can be mentioned even if the underlying facts are arguably not a scandal. (The definitional sentence that leads off says this, but putting it in the title somehow is ok too.) The article is the mereest stub of what it might be... The entries each have the potential to be POV forks (WNDL42's scandalous "Kuhner" project is a stinking example of POV run wild), but the solution is to fix them, not delete a useful reference article. Andyvphil (talk) 01:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.Biophys (talk) 03:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a useful article with summaries. The edit history of this shows that usually a consensus is quickly reached and even the controversial ones come to consensus in time. Jmcnamera (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's become too much of a stomping ground for right wingers wanting to show up what they call the "MSM". Broken links and sketchy "cites" abound. Check out the details, including refs, for this, this and this for starters. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 00:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - An extremely encyclopedic and interesting subject. If there's actual problems with it, fix them, as per Andyvphil. The name is somewhat problematic, but that can be fixed as well. FCYTravis (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Having vandals is no reason whatsoever to delete an article, only a reason to fight vandals and their work. The article discusses facts; Encyclopedias are supposed to contain facts. Hmains (talk) 04:07, 27 February 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.