< February 26 February 28 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy deleted (CSD G5, banned user) by Woody. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 00:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Movie Day[edit]

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

This article cites zero sources, and comes up with no Google sources whatsoever. MixItUp 23:34, 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, per WP:NFF. Please notify me (or any admin) if or when the movie is in production and can be verified with reliable sources saying just that, happy to undelete. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Main Aur Mrs. Khanna[edit]

Main Aur Mrs. Khanna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Explicitly fails WP:NFF. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest copying the page to your userspace instead and reinstating it when production has been confirmed by reliable sources to have begun. (Production means shooting the film, not pre-production, poster design, or photoshoots.) NFF is not new anymore, and I know that you have been aware of it. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:02, 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. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! 07:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kambakth Ishq[edit]

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

Explicitly fails WP:NFF. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean pre-production. Production means the film is shooting. We've been over this before, and WP:NFF is very clear on the matter. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:00, 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 off the air. (In other words, delete.) Elkman (Elkspeak) 03:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WDVL[edit]

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

Non-notable radio station. The station is closed-circuit and has no secondary sources listed (fails WP:RS). As per a discussion on WP:RADIO here, the station fails notability. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:09, 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 all. If the band were notable, the albums could be merged. Because the band fails WP:MUSIC, so do the albums. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Townhall[edit]

Townhall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Live at the Point (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The New Song (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
American Dreams (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:N. - Sc straker (talk) 22:59, 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 Procedural close. This is the wrong venue for a merge discussion. Use the article talk page and proposed merge procedures. Bringing an article here with "hopes for a merge consensus" isn't appropriate in deletion venue, although it is often the consensus that arises. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Romney[edit]

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

Non-notable son of Mitt Romney considering running for public office. I have been unable to find any references to him other than his father's campaign or his contemplated run for congress. I had proposed to merge this article with Mitt Romney, but could not find concensus with its creator. Mstuczynski (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I whole heartedly concur. I was hoping for a merge concensus here. That is why I mentioned it in the nom. Mstuczynski (talk) 22:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Do not merge, do not delete - I don't think "non-notable son" is a fair or accurate. He has received significant national attention in the last year while campaigning on behalf of his father. While that in itself does not warrant an article, he is being mentioned in the national media as a candidate for Congress. This only became known in the past two days, yet it has already been covered by numerous well known media outlets, such as Fox News, the Huffington Post, the Washington Post, the Drudge Report, and more.
Update...In light of the other feedback here, if a decision to remove a separate article is made before any additional campaign details emerge, I would suggest merge, either with the Mitt Romney article, the Pratt-Romney article, or both (Mitt Romney campaign details in his article, Josh Romney business/Congressional details on the Pratt-Romney article, with the possibility of restoring this article as is if an official candidacy is announced). Jrclark (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand why there is so much pressure to delete or merge this article - it hasn't even been proposed as a 'merge' for a day.
We'll know for sure in the next three weeks if he will be an official candidate. If he choose not to run, then yes, I would suggest we delete or merge the article. In the meantime, this is a nationally known person running for a high office with national press coverage.Jrclark (talk) 23:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The notability of an article cannot be determined by a future, speculative event, especially as one as uncertain as that. If the candidacy for Congress is confirmed, then the article could merit a split, but until then there isn't enough to warrant a separate article.--TBC!?! 23:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some more sources tonight to the article, to demonstrate notability. Will continue to do so as the national press continues to cover this. Jrclark (talk) 23:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, the notability of the article is based mostly on speculation, even if news of a possible (but unconfirmed) candidacy is released tonight.--TBC!?! 00:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just added some more Josh Romney references/articles (per Wikipedia recommendations) from the past year, from across the country, to try to further demonstrate notability. Jrclark (talk) 00:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Going over the references you've added, most of them essentially state that Josh had been campaigning for his father, which isn't unexpected (as he's Mitt's son and all) and certainly not enough to warrant a separate article.--TBC!?! 00:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe they demonstrate that he is not only notable in Utah, but also across the country. None of his four brothers have received this much press or notability, nor have any other children on the campaign trail that I know of, other than Chelsea Clinton. Again, I believe he is a notable figure who continues to receive national attention and may be running for the Federal House of Representatives. Jrclark (talk) 00:37, 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 speedily deleted as a copyvio. I'm going to presume that the ArbCom injunction is not intended to prevent deletion of those. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naruto--Biography[edit]

Naruto--Biography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Found this while sorting through uncat pages. This is an expanded fictional biography of Naruto Uzumaki which has no sources, unwikified and has some OR. It is also redundant to the more comprehensive discussion in the character's article. Not feasible as a redirect. Lenticel (talk) 22:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a copyvio from here. I'm tagging it for speedy. Hazillow (talk) 07:43, 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 , fails WP:BIO notability criteria based on lack of independent sources. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hesham Tillawi[edit]

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

According to this Hesham (or Hisham? The article disagrees with itself) is not the president or on the board of the Palestinian American Congress. The article also says that he is the host of Current Issues, but doesn't say what or where Current Issues is (the blue link is a circular redirect). I'd notify User:EliasAlucard of this discussion, but he was recently blocked indefinitely.

Here is an example of his work [1], and there also appears to be some biographical information available about him at www.davidduke.com. Otherwise, he doesn't appear to meet notability criteria. Avruch T 22:23, 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 no consensus. Hopefully Noah will be able to improve the article and avoid a quick return trip here.--Kubigula (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kush (herb)[edit]

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

This is not a notable or reliably verifiable subset or strain of cannabis and thus I propose that the article be removed. Sites like as "www.4cannabis.com" do not fall under (or anywhere near) the umbrella of a reliable source. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, the article title needs to change to something like Kush (cannabis). Noah 05:51, 2 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 to Dre (producer). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Trunk[edit]

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

Non-notable album, claims to have been cancelled. Isn't the subject of any reliable sources.

Also listing two singles from the same:

Chevy Ridin' High (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Be Somebody (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters(Broken clamshellsOtter chirps) 21:58, 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 per WP:NFF. This film was stopped in 1998 due to lack of funding and has never gotten off the ground, if I'm reading the sources correctly. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marudha Nayagam[edit]

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

Explicitly fails WP:NFF. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a merge to Hassan's page might be in order then? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:25, 4 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. Fram (talk) 12:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alon Ziv[edit]

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

This article is about an author whose sole claim to notability is the authorship of a book that is itself not notable. It is essentially unreferenced (as of this moment it references only a YouTube link and the book itself) and has no information about the author itself. This lack alone might not be enough to get the article deleted, but it appears that biographical information (or even details about the book itself) are hard to come by from a secondary source. Avruch T 21:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that was the same problem I encountered. Avruch T 01:32, 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 due to lack of references in reliable independent publications. Fram (talk) 12:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Williamson[edit]

Chad Williamson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Additional notes: Artist is not listed at AMG and the article really needs some WP:NPOV cleanup. Also:

♫ Cricket02 (talk) 06:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Previous Discussion Moved From Article's Talk Page

responded to author bias i posted a response to this concern here accordingly, I have have removed the COI tag.

Additionally, I intend to add more content as soon as I find the time. Further expansion is definitely required. If anyone finds the time, perhaps they could copy edit this to make the language more encyclopedic. Otherwise, I'll do it when I get the opportunity. Soundgallery (talk) 05:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ps If anyone can find more info out about the band, I'd really appreciate a booster. I can't find much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soundgallery (talkcontribs) 05:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Author Bias just because the author of the article's name is same as the guys band or whatever, doesn't necessarily imply a bias; it could just be someone who decided to that they'd like it as their username...methinks this requires some confirmation from the user himself —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.109.99.2 (talk) 20:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contested Page Deletion (February 24th, 2008)

Third party sources offering validity, notoriety, and encyclopedic significance have been added to address the concerns of Wiki moderators. I hereby contest any and all proposals for deletion, given the article's importance and factual reliability.

user:Soundgallery


Oh...also, I wanted to add that the research for this beast took FOREVER. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soundgallery (talkcontribs) 05:32, 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. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 20:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Curto[edit]

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

Non-notable. CSD tag removed by author. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN aka john lennon 21:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I also replaced the tag if that's alright. -WarthogDemon 22:34, 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. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! 07:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Zeller[edit]

Tyler Zeller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Larry Drew, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ed Davis (basketball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Elliot Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

High school athletes. Scant information, none seem to meet WP:BIO. Merged after the nominator realized he had no freaking clue how to merge afd entries. -WarthogDemon 22:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Could someone merge Elliot Williams? I can't figure out how to link this article on that page. -WarthogDemon 22:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP.why did you nominate this entry? Zeller will be a player for UNC basketball next season, he's definitely a worthy entry. He is one of the elite 25 high school basketball players in America. The #4 power forward in the 2008 high school class and a McDonald's All-American.DP08 (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Marginally notable, but I think it fails WP:BIO due to lack of secondary sources. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:49, 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.--Kubigula (talk) 05:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Big Toys, No Boys 2[edit]

Big Toys, No Boys 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability. Fails WP:MOVIE. SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 21:39, 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. Fram (talk) 13:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Aaliyah second compilation album[edit]

Untitled Aaliyah second compilation album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No title, no release date, no track list ... pure crystal Kww (talk) 21:35, 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 00:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Summit Publishers[edit]

Washington Summit Publishers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article is made solely of disparaging comments regarding the subject. It clearly fails WP:NPOV and constitutes an attack page. The prod was removed so I am taking it to AfD even though the person removing the tag refused to state why, and is the one adding only negative material of the subject [8]. N4GMiraflores (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DeletePer my own comments above. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually the article was created by a Washington Summit Publishers supporter. Adding criticisms is no reason for deletion. Notable publisher for the far right as seen by the Southern Poverty Law Center comments and hate group listing.Ultramarine (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The page was created as [9], however it has since become an attack page with only attacking comments including "... lists WSP as a White Nationalist Hate Group" and as noted you are the sole person adding content, content which is only attacking and disparaging the subject against WP:NPOV and rules regarding attack pages. Do you plan to balance the article to make it not a violation of WP:NPOV, or are we simply to leave an attack article in place since the SPL commented on them. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sourced criticisms is not a reason for deletion.Ultramarine (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The whole page is sourced criticism, hence it is an attack page. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If you think the article is unbalanced, and you object to that, then you should edit it to provide the balance. Why do you expect other people to do that for you? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:48, 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 Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DIY Framework[edit]

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

No RS coverage and ghits are primarily forums and how tos. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 21:24, 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.--Kubigula (talk) 05:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Landmines[edit]

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

Non-notable drinking game. Violates WP:MADEUP, WP:V, and WP:N. Mr Senseless (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article appears to be composed entirely of original research. Not notable, in my opinion. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I searched Google and came up with nothing. Anthony Rupert (talk) 06:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:05, 3 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 Seeing as in 4 years, the article has not been contributed to significantly beyond the original author, and the original author, Lovelac7, here says merge, I think we've got a merge on our hands! (I'm close this as merge but I will not be merging. Have at it.) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dugba[edit]

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

Article about staff position within Michigan State Student Government. Fails WP:Notability and WP:OR. --RedShiftPA (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Associated Students of Michigan State University. I wrote this article almost four years ago, and I can't believe it's lasted this long. In hindsight, I have to say that it's not notable enough to merit its own article. Lovelac7 22:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant information, failing that delete. The position in and of itself is not notable. Montco (talk) 05:09, 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 Procedural close as the prior nomination was less than one month ago. Bring the prior discussion to deletion review if you feel the previous consensus was closed wrongly by the admin. (i have no opinion on that). No prejudice against a renomination at a later date, its just to soon and feels very much like "keep on nominating until the results are satisfactory". Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Ross (media executive)[edit]

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

This article was nominated before, got keep and then got prodded again. So I am putting it here for reconsideration, no opinion from me. Tone 21:11, 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. - Revolving Bugbear 22:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boating World[edit]

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

Delete unsourced article about a magazine published by a redlink, no indication of its importance or significance. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:58, 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. Fram (talk) 13:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of the largest airports in the South Slavic countries[edit]

List of the largest airports in the South Slavic countries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I find the idea of a list of the airports based on a language highly exotic. Besides, the article is poorly referenced and of suspicious accuracy. For example, it is hard to believe taht there is no airport between Banja luka and Gorna Oryahovitsa, according to the number of passengers. This article basically qualifies as indiscriminate collection of information. Tone 20:51, 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. Carioca (talk) 00:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fouse[edit]

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

Apart from an apparently official website, I can't find any significant coverage for this device, which would be unusual for a notable computer gadget. I'm therefore nominating for deletion on grounds of non-notability. This had been proposed for deletion, but was contested by an IP editor. Sturm 20:43, 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 close, nom's issue has been taken to RfD. Any concerns about the notability of Chris Folino may be brought up in a new AfD. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters(Broken clamshellsOtter chirps) 21:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Folino[edit]

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

Only exists as redirect to article on nn filmmaker Chris Folino; COI concerns raised about creator's edit history. &#151;Whoville (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Didn't realize there was a separate process for redirects. &#151;Whoville (talk) 20:55, 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 all three. Fram (talk) 13:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Live in Concert (Trace Adkins album)[edit]

Live in Concert (Trace Adkins album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Okay, I admit, I probably shouldn't have made this page. This is just a live album that Trace Adkins cut at some point; although Trace is very notable, this album doesn't seem to be the subject of any reliable sources at all. Yes, I realize that 99% of albums released by notable artists are notable as well; however, the lack of coverage here has me believing that this album falls into that other 1%. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters(Broken clamshellsOtter chirps) 20:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Live in Concert (Joe Diffie album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Live in Concert (Mark Chesnutt album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Weak delete, while I commend your superb taste in music, the only RS coverage (Trace and Joe) I find is announcements of the albums. No reviews, no critiques. Don't appear notable, although they were great song collections, from my perspective :) TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 20:30, 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, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters(Broken clamshellsOtter chirps) 17:24, 2 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 00:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2 Base Encoding[edit]

2 Base Encoding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Lacks context, not written in an encyclopedic tone, appears to be a personal essay, hasn't been edited in several days, may consist of original research/synthesis of published material, references do not work, and needs attention from an expert on the subject. I'd say that all of that adds up to a valid reason for putting this to AfD. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Personally I think that's a completely invalid reason to leave a poor quality article that may fail Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in the main namespace. Also, the tag on the page explicitly states "Consider not tagging with a deletion tag unless the page hasn't been edited in several days". It's been five since the last edit.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I respect your opinion, but beg to differ. I always think it a shame to delete any article that is on a notable subject, however bad it is. If it does not improve in a week or two, then it can always be stripped down to a stub. 2 base encoding is notable per [12][13][14][15][16] etc.Aardvarkvarkvark (talk) 21:05, 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-style. Elkman (Elkspeak) 03:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

D-style[edit]

D-style (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a game guide TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 20:05, 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. Bduke (talk) 10:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chorye Spoone[edit]

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

The article's subject is not notable. He's a minor-league baseball player, playing in the minors 2005-2007, never played in any major league. TJRC (talk) 20:00, 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. After checking the arguments and their validity, the delete opinion is clearly the strongest. Fram (talk) 13:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Persaud[edit]

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

Nonnotable person. All of the references and external links appear to be self-published sources that do not establish notability (I did not check them). Author KawalP has not written anything else on wiki, so he may have a conflict of interest. Shalom (HelloPeace) 20:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Author's talk page shows that this article was previously tagged for speedy deletion and later for PROD. Shalom (HelloPeace) 20:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to what Shalom claims, all three of the references are third party creations. Shalom admits that he/she did not check the references or external links. Also,the statement that because someone has not written more than one article on a website constitutes a conflict of interest escapes me. This statement is illogical.

Self-published works in themselves are not indicative of non-notability. Some of the best books I have read have been self-published works.

I thought that once a deletion notice has been removed from an article or page, it should not be reinstated.

(KawalP (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

If this guy does not qualify as notable enough to be included in Wikipedia, then countless entries that exist in Wikipedia should be removed. I have looked at what Shalom and Good Olfactory have written, including Good Olfactory's talk page and get the troubling feeling that these individuals are anti-Christian. Good Olfactory especially, seems to suffer from a complex in this regard. Just read his/her comments and arguments. (KawalP (talk) 00:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was this page not proposed for deletion already, and such deletion opposed? Do Wikipedia rules not say that if the proposed deletion of a page is objected to and subsequently removed that the page should not be proposed for deletion again? Are we transgressing convention here? Are we being selective as to which articles should be approved and which should not be, based on the idiosyncrasies of biased individuals like Good Olfactory and his/her likes? (Cperlobo (talk) 02:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC))— Cperlobo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Cperlobo & KawalP are two different individuals. I ask the owners and administrators of Wikipedia to do their best to mainatin the high standards of their encyclopedia. I ask that they do not allow ultra-liberals and anti-religionists to bastardize a noble venture.

(Cperlobo (talk) 13:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC))— Cperlobo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I have looked at Good Olfactory's talk page and while some of his comments (not necessarily about the issue at hand) are not without merit, I do detect a measure of prejudice in his statements. Also, he seems to be somewhat judgmental.

(Juno200 (talk) 16:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC))— Juno200 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I ask that Wikipedia administrators carefully consider the facts appertaining to this case before making a decision as to whether or not to delete the article. I remind them of the following:

1. Notability is a relative term and not because an author is self-published does it mean that his work is substandard. Increasingly, the trend in book publishing is toward print-on-demand publishing. Many excellent writers have no other recourse, mainly because of financial constraints.

2. The author in question is from Guyana, South America, and the concept of relative importance or notability is brought to the fore. Guyana is a small country on the South American continent and few writers, authors and poets emerge from this third-world country. A Guyanese, by just being a published author in the USA, accomplishes a certain measure of notability.

3. I have seen many Wikipedia pages and articles. Less notable people than Christopher Persaud have had pages written about them and have had such pages remain in the encyclopedia.

4. Lastly, I sincerely hope, contrary to what I sometimes read and hear, that Wikipedia really offers everyone, conservatives and liberals alike, a forum to participate freely in producing informative, truthful information for the world at large to see.

In closing, while I stand fully behind my arguments that have been provided in objecting to the deletion of Christopher Persaud, if my language in some instances was somewhat uncivil, I apologize to all who might have been offended.

(KawalP (talk) 14:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Reply 1. Notability as used in the wikipedia sense refers to the notablity guidelines. That he has chosen to self-publish doesn't necessarily mean that he is not notable, but the preponderance of self-published authors are not notable. Reliables sources to attest to notbility would overcome this. 2. Thta he is from Guyana is irrelevant. Guyana does produce notable authors such as Mark McWatt who have won literary prizes for their work. And as for being published in the US being notable, how does that square up with the fact that the works are self-published? 3. Other articles in wikipedia are irrlevant in considering the merits of this article. 4. I don't know what you are hearing but this is an encyclopedia. -- Whpq (talk) 15:55, 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. BencherliteTalk 20:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Cadets (uk band)[edit]

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

Article has been around since May 2007, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:MUSIC. ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 19:53, 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 Delete not notable --Stephen 02:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered[edit]

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

While a search on 'Delivered' and literary is nearly impossible for obvious reasons, 12 ghits for the parent company reveal no notability. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 19:45, 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 Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MeeMix[edit]

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

non notable website Asod123123 (talk) 13:36, 10 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, --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:11, 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, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:39, 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 non-notable fictional plant --Stephen 03:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wild fresney[edit]

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

Minor in-universe entity; article will never be reasonably expanded or properly sourced (contested prod) Matchups (talk) 19:32, 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 per copyvio. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DPRG[edit]

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

"Aims at becoming an acknowledged..." No evidence that it's happened yet and none of the 12 ghits assert any notability. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 19:13, 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 all 7. Fram (talk) 13:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EyeCatcher Entertainment[edit]

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

Also included in this nomination:

Non-notable film company. Sole claim to fame is an award they won at a Swedish film festival for their 2006 release, Captive. However, the article on the film festival where they won their award was created by the same editor who created the articles on the company, making it highly suspect in my mind. In addition, the only film that has won an award at said festival which has an article on Wikipedia is Captive.

With that said, the only relevant ghits are for Youtube, Myspace, IMDB, Wikipedia, and their official web site. No news coverage I can find. No secondary sources. No reason to believe this company, its films, and the people associated with it are in any way notable. Fails WP:BIO, WP:MOVIE, WP:CORP. Redfarmer (talk) 19:11, 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 no consensus. Clearly this article needs more work, otherwise I suspect it will come back here.Bduke (talk) 11:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo! Fantasy Sports[edit]

Yahoo! Fantasy Sports (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Page is nothing more than a poor list with common sense facts, like 2003 was year#4 of fantasy baseball, and other than the poor list page only contains external links. I find it to be a useless page for Wikipedia. UWMSports (talk) 19:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not a matter of I don't like it. The page is useless. You are telling me that list is useful? -UWMSports (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The site in question has had some significant news coverage, and at least a couple of the sources in the article itself are legit. Therefore, the subject is most likely notable, even if the page is mostly a big list right now. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters(Broken clamshellsOtter chirps) 19:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • At its current state, I think it could be merged into a subsection under Yahoo. How about giving its main creators a week or so to clean it up or have it merged? It has some relevant sources, but they don't give all that much. -UWMSports (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The proposal is new. They have at least as much time as it takes to close it. Several days at the least the way it looks like it is going right now. Mstuczynski (talk) 00:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only other article was Drake, and I happen to like that one alot. I just added an expansion tag for a one sentence preseason section. Yahoo needs significant work. I'll help you with it if need be. I brought it here because you kept reverting my edits so I figured this needed a third, fourth and fifth opinion. I don't have a personal vandetta against you. -UWMSports (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say, "I brought it here because you kept reverting my edits so I figured this needed a third, fourth and fifth opinion." That is not the purpose of AFD. Our deletion process is not here to resolve content disputes or draw attention to low-quality articles. If you don't actually advocate deleting this article, I suggest you may want to withdraw this nomination. (I don't say this because I'm gung-ho about keeping the article, though I do think it's a notable subject.) szyslak 04:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had cleaned up the section, but User:SportsMasterESPN/Josh reverted them and actually expanded that too long section. I left a message on his talk page about the problem. Royalbroil 20:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He's been totally incoherent to my comments and apparently others as well. He is intent on simply reverting all constructive edits. See User_talk:SportsMasterESPN. I'm willing to drop this suggestion for deletion and help him form a good Yahoo Fantasy page if he is willing. But unfortunately, he has not replied and simply reverted all edits. -UWMSports (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I advocate for that section to include only the start dates for each program and an end date for any obsolete programs. For example, Fantasy Football's start date be listed as August 1998 with no other start dates for Fantasy Football - the start date for each year should be removed. A table listing each program and its start/end dates might be a better way to do what I'm suggesting. Royalbroil 20:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like merging is the current majority. Even Royalbroil, who has been very close to the situation has changed his thoughts from keep to merge after realizing there isn't enough to make a Yahoo Fantasy article look more than an advertisement. Those above who also said keep, said that on the condition that the article be cleaned up. The only strong keep was from the article writer, so he might have a COI. I think we should wrap this discussion up and merge Yahoo! Fantasy Sports into Yahoo! Sports. This will eliminate an entire page of advertising to Yahoo Fantasy, but keep the core history of its fantasy leagues within the general sports article. I think we can wrap the deletion discussion up me thinks! -UWMSports (talk) 06:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this article has some serious issues, but I still see absolutely no consensus. Strong keep, week keep, reluctant keep: they are all still keeps. That is also ignoring the deletes. Please try to be patient, if there is no concensus this will need people working to fix it. Mstuczynski (talk) 07:23, 4 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Tierney[edit]

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

Someone who publishes short stories on his website, and has allegedly sold some to magazines. I found no evidence that he has authored a published book, or that his stories have been anthologized in one. I found no mentions of him even in local media. This is a vanity article; the sole source which might indicate notability is a dead-link to a conference website which lists "famous Londoners," but it uses exactly the same phrasing Wikipedia's article on London, Ontario does, and in all probability it happened to scrape that page before someone caught it. <eleland/talkedits> 18:58, 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 derail. Oops, I mean delete. Elkman (Elkspeak) 03:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dagus and Rockwood Railroad[edit]

Dagus and Rockwood Railroad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be an entirely non-notable model railroad. Article created by the railroad model's creator. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 18:38, 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 speculation --Stephen 03:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spice Girls Live In London[edit]

Spice Girls Live In London (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This page is purely speculative. There have been no official sources saying that this show would be released on DVD, not to mention the lack of news regarding ANY DVD release. SKS2K6 (talk) 18:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL... Live as in a live concert! Queerbubbles (talk) 23:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD was not linked from the article page between 23:47 Feb 27 and 10:42 Feb 28. Fixed now. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 10:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD was not linked from the article page between 22:12 Mar 01 and 12:48 Mar 03. Fixed now. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 12:51, 3 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.....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mormon times[edit]

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

This website article is unreferenced and does not assert notability per WP:WEB. Shalom (HelloPeace) 18:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. My argument was more toward the non-hoax/"has a chance to improve" area. The question remains, will it improve? Padillah (talk) 18:49, 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 a7, no sources to show notability, created by User:----screechconor---- as one of that user's two contributions (the other was adding himself to the list of OBE recipients). NawlinWiki (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conor wilson[edit]

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

Looks like a long-forgotten hoax. EJF (talk) 18:08, 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 Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Radically Disentangled Morphology[edit]

Radically Disentangled Morphology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article is couched in scientific jargon and impressive looking references but when you look deeper nothing actually mentions the term "Radically Disentangled Morphology". Google has nothing for it either. This appears to be either a hoax or original research. Ros0709 (talk) 18:05, 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. Fram (talk) 14:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mikael Nordfors[edit]

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

The notability of this subject is quite unclear. No sources are given, and the article has been routinely edited by Mikael Nordfors himself: he has written the bulk of the text and removed a PROD tag. I'm concerned about WP:BLP issues as well -- even though this is written mainly by the subject and therefore not something he would object to, this is fundamentally a poorly sourced article saying some scandalous things about a living person. (edit: The things have been removed; you can look in the history to see what they were.)

As far as I can tell his notability comes from three claims: (1) his book, which the article claims to have been a bestseller, but there's no source and I couldn't verify it. The book is being sold online but seems to be heavily discounted. (2) His conflict with medical authorities over this "anal massage" thing, which is very sparsely covered (and only in Swedish AFAICT, so I couldn't actually verify it). (3) His connection to DemoEx. DemoEx doesn't have an article and I couldn't verify its notability. It seems to be an experimental idea with an extremely low profile. The World Parliament Experiment is also a low-profile organization; the article started by Mikael Nordfors. No independent reliable sources back up any of this claim (and being invited to participate in some conferences, while surely exciting, doesn't make for real notability.) Mangojuicetalk 17:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd rather not. It isn't that closely linked with Nordfors, and might actually be notable. Suspicious, but at least deserves independent consideration IMO. Mangojuicetalk 17:24, 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. Singularity 00:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capability Bias[edit]

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

Appears to be original research. --Snigbrook (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC) --Snigbrook (talk) 17:07, 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. Singularity 00:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religion dispatches[edit]

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

Contested speedy. Non-notable website, just created in the past few weeks. No independent sources at all. Only relevant Google hits are for the site itself, the WP article and an assortment of bloggers (several of whom write for this site). Claims to be "the very first secular online magazine devoted to the scholarly analysis of religion for the general reader," a claim I find impossible to uphold or verify. It may be a notable web site someday, but it's not even close today. Possible self-promotion. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:04, 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 Non-Admin Closure. Tiddly-Tom 07:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Implicit cognition[edit]

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

Transwikied dictionary definition. TexasAndroid (talk) 14:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep despite the fact that the article's reference is an author from (EEK!) Berkeley (J/K!), it does fall (barely) within WP guidelines for inclusion. Another article that needs expansion, not deletion.--Sallicio 20:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper
OK, I have now added a direct reference for the definition, and provided two book references for anyone interested in additional editing. As the article stands now, there are sufficient sources mentioned to dispel any notability doubts. We just need a psychology clean-up crew now. --Ig8887 (talk) 17:58, 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 non-notable bio --Stephen 03:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otto Mining Law[edit]

Otto Mining Law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article appears to be primarily a self-written biography of J.M. Otto. Would have suggested moving the page; however, the page is an orphan, with no links to it elsewhere in WP. Not sure therefore that it satisfies WP:N. Additionally, material is exactly the same (barring refs) as that presented on User:JamesMichaelOtto, the page creator. Umrguy42 (talk) 16:56, 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. Addhoc (talk) 22:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticaldns[edit]

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

No RS coverage and ghits show shopping links and zero evidence of notability. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 16:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable. Thanks, George D. Watson (Dendodge).TalkHelp and assistance 16:47, 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. Singularity 00:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plunderer[edit]

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

Delete Fails WP:V, WP:RS and WP:FICT. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asgardian (talk) 13:30, 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. Tikiwont (talk) 08:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avanti Construction[edit]

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

Concerns about notability raised at DRV are sufficient to list. — Coren (talk) 15:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avanti mobilised existing enabling technologies in order to improve business performance by increasing quality of information and predictability of outcomes and by reducing risk and waste.

so even if the project is notable, large portions of it would need to be cut. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after extensive edits. The prose still needs a stiff dose of concrete, plain English. The text is still plagued with buzzwords and zippy-sounding but vague phrases like "action research programme", and it still uses "business" generically where "construction industry" seems meant; but it seems reasonably clear that this is a government sponsored standardization initiative. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 02:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So yeah, delete...again. John Reaves 17:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have reversed a speedy deletion that was generally agreed was on flimsy ground so that a proper discussion on the merits of the article could be achieved. Hence the AfD. — Coren (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addressing all the issues and concerns:
    • I have improved this article with a multitude of relevant internal links, to meet Wikipedia’s quality standards, as it needed to be wikified. I have therefore removed the ((wikify)) tag, following the procedure specified in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_that_need_to_be_wikified.
    • This article needed sources or references that appear in reliable, third-party publications, as primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of this article generally are not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. I have included more appropriate citations from reliable sources. I have therefore removed the ((primarysources)) tag.
    • I have rewritten the article and I have addressed all the issues raised by all the administrators (above). I have tried to show its notability and I have given evidence of the need of this project and of how the UK government realised the importance of developing a collaborative approach to the construction industry. The BS 1192, a British Standard, relied heavily on Avanti. You can check this by clicking on http://www.bsi-global.com/en/Shop/Publication-Detail/?pid=000000000030163398 (the Avanti logo is there). And BS 5555 also used the Avanti methodology. Reference number 6 shows the government involvement.
    • I would like to sincerely thank all of you administrators above for your comments and suggestions: I have taken them into deep and serious consideration and I hope I have now matched all the requirements.
    • I look forward to the outcome of the review/discussion.
    • Thanking you in anticipation --Machiavelli2008 (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I believe that the revisions and new sourcing help to demonstrate notability, and they certainly do demonstrate government involvement (something several contributors above mentioned that they'd like to see verified. (And, of course, this can't be a non-notable company, since it isn't a company, but a project. :)) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the page still needs a good dose of copyediting (now where did I put those scissors?) but that is an editorial-type question not an AfD matter. Notability as a government sponsored programme has been established by substantial secondary sources so the page meets WP:N. BlueValour (talk) 02:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - OK; I have cleaned up the formatting (removed spurious breaks, put references after the punctuation instead of before etc.) and moved it to a more accurate title (it is described in the official DTI documentation as a programme). As nicely described by Smerdis of Tlön, the prose needs de-jargonning but that will come. BlueValour (talk) 02:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; the later edits seem to have addressed the concerns about the article fairly well; I note that while I am the nominator de facto, I have no opinion about keeping the article or not. — Coren (talk) 03:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am no longer in favor of deleting the article. I was mistaken in my original assessment of the article, thinking it was a constrution firm. Since nomination, the article has been signficantly improved, relocated to a more appropriate namespace. I render no opinion on the notability of the subject, the Avanti Programme, as I don't have sufficient knowledge in the subject area to render an opinion. Dgf32 (talk) 04:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • changed above to Strong Keep. Excellent good job of editing! DGG (talk) 04:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as rewritten, the article has significantly improved to the point where our inclusionary guidelines have been met and exceeded. RFerreira (talk) 19:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - well re-written and Cited. Exit2DOS2000TC 07:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article has been heavily revised such that the original rationale for deletion is now moot. (jarbarf) (talk) 20:03, 2 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.

Proof that Fuel won the prize for Best International Feature Film at the Lisbon Village Festival can be found at http://lisbon07.villagefestival.net/en/02pressreleases.aspx?menu=2&id=21 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.189.43 (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]