< January 17	January 19 >

Guide to deletion

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Jose Hernandez[edit]

Unreferenced autobiography about a local Houston DJ who claims his albums have sold hundreds of thousands of copies in Mexico and the Rio Grande area, but I'm unable to verify those claims via online searches in either English or Spanish. The article reads like a soap opera, and the story about Universal Records doesn't quite sound right. A related article, Northside Cash Money Entertainment, was also nominated for deletion on January 17. KrakatoaKatie 04:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources found to support notability, or any of the assertions in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 12:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Likely hoax, user and the related socks have created several hoax/non-notable articles this week. Caknuck (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I searched Google and found nothing; if the things the article is asserting were correct you'd think there would be some mention in the news... Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 00:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I too could not find anything convincing on Google. The song 'Muevelo' by the Kumbia Kings (a.k.a. Los Super Reyes) is well-known but I couldn't find any online reference to him being the producer. There is the possibility of a hoax. EdJohnston (talk) 01:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merging the info still doesn't help with the notabilty and sourcing concerns mentioned in this article Secret ^account 01:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ekapshi Light Atmospheric Fighter[edit]

These articles are entirely plot summary without information, cited or otherwise, about real-world development or critical response. Content has no degree of verifiability or notability. --EEMIV (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article content is original research or is otherwise unsourceable to an independent, reliable source. Wickethewok (talk) 03:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The few I have inspected contain no plot summary. I therefore wonder if they have actually been looked at before nomination, as the reason given does not apply. . DGG (talk) 12:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They all regurgitate backstory and "tech data" and whatnot -- that's plot. Maybe not from the games themselves, but that doesn't particularly matter. Point is, it's all in-universe drek. --EEMIV (talk) 15:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - These are all Wing Commander space craft types. As DGG noted, the articles are not plot summaries. But they essentially describe the craft with no out-of-universe analysis because there really are none. It would make more sense to trim and merge to a list. -- Whpq (talk) 12:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 15:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger into list, and/or transwiki to a gaming wiki. - Koweja (talk) 04:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please see this related AfD for, I dunno, precedent/similar thinking. --EEMIV (talk) 08:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a list - with appropriate redirects. matt91486 (talk) 01:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Even list-ified material needs to be cited to sources, none of which are present in the article nor presented here. --EEMIV (talk) 02:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. --EEMIV (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. --EEMIV (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some viable secondary sources can be found (I will try and poke around for some but I'm not holding my breath) Note that it seems these articles have already been copied to the Wing Commander Information Center wiki, which in my opinion is a much more appropriate place for them. Cecilkorik (talk) 08:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not real world, fancruft. Doesn't belong in Wikipedia. PKT (talk) 16:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy Delete as a copyvio. CitiCat^♫ 00:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile ambassador[edit]

Seems to be a nonnotable neologism, previously deleted via PROD, reads more like a dictionary entry. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 23:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Even worse: it apparently is copied from [1] meaning it is either a copyvio, or spam. Goochelaar (talk) 23:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Copyvio, neologism, previously deleted, dictionary, no way this even requires a AfD. Soxred93 | talk count bot 00:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete as not notable; completely unsourced biography of a living person. Also, a professor with the same name is more notable, and brings up most of the Ghits. Bearian (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk Beattie[edit]

AfDs for this article:

A young actor who is trying very hard with this article but ultimately is not yet notable enough for an article in the encyclopedia. Also fails WP:V. An article about Kirk Beattie was deleted at AfD once before but as that was over a year ago, I am bringing it here again. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Doesn't even try to seem notable, if one of his accomplishment is the he has "appeared as a winner of tickets to a WWE wrestling event". Goochelaar (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant roles, and no coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 12:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Love the way his commercial is attached to blockbuster movies. PKT (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. If anyone would like to redirect it to a list, as some suggested at the centralized discussion, that would be fine. Justin^Contribs_{User page} 21:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B4180[edit]

This article is about a non-notable road and has no sources or references to provide verifiability. -- Atama ^chat 23:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. According to Wikipedia:Notability (highways)#United Kingdom, B-class roads might or might not be notable. This one links a rural village to a nearby town. RJC ^Talk 00:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well looky here! According to Google Maps, the road that links Wordsley to Brierley Hill in the U.K. is the A4180. I wonder whether we have happened upon a Google Maps copyright trap. Uncle G (talk) 02:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sneaky! The road in question does appear to be the B4180, at least according to theAA.com. I should note that this site suggests that, if you want to get from Wordsley to Brierley Hill, you take the A461 to the A491, and only suggests the B4180 if you absolutely insist upon traveling through Brockmoor. If it is also a Google copyright trap (rather than an error), that would further decrease its importance, I think. RJC ^Talk 02:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/B roads in the United Kingdom Regan123 (talk) 15:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge into Jackson_Heights,_Queens#Education. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of schools in Jackson Heights[edit]

This page is not really a list of schools although it mentions some. It's more like an essay and is not very encyclopedic. I see why no reason schools should be listed unles they are notable, and then they could go on the Jackson Heights, Queens page. MSGJ (talk) 23:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jackson Heights, Queens#Education. The standard for lists of schools has been to list them in the school district or the town article. No reason why this one should be any different.--Fabrictramp (talk) 00:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The information that looks verifiable is already in the main article. Nothing here that needs to be saved. CitiCat^♫ 00:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As school districts do not apply in the usual sense in NYC, this sort of article is the equivalent. DGG (talk) 12:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could clarify what you mean by the usual sense, as there are districts in NYC. Most of Jackson Heights is in district 30. CitiCat^♫ 04:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks! Redfarmer (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Jackson Heights, Queens#Education per Fabrictramp Doc Strange (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Jackson Heights, Queens#Education. TerriersFan (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per people who said merge. Mandsford (talk) 01:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep as notable and sourced well enough for inclusion. Bearian (talk) 17:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religion in Futurama[edit]

The religion in Futurama is not notable because it isn't extremely important for the show. Fails WP:FICT. Tavix (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As opposed to the recently deleted Robots in Futurama article this article is referenced from a variety of reliable secondary sources. The relevant guideline here is WP:N "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Likewise in WP:FICT "Topics within a fictional universe are notable if they have received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Non-notable information should be deleted only when other options have been exhausted." The article satisfies the need for secondary sources and out of universe context and thus meets WP:FICT rather than failing it as claimed here. The subject not being "extremely important for the show" is the nominator's opinion and not a reason for deletion under Wikipedia:Deletion Policy. I'll agree the article needs cleanup and probably some trimming but deletion is not the answer. Star dust 8212 22:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While referenced, this is largely original research and the references are mostly primary sources. The subject is of weak merit and dubious notability. -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a great topic for a thesis or magazine article, but as the sources are mainly primary sources it seems to be original research. --Nick Dowling (talk) 23:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThis article, while not fantastically written, is well sourced, and is similar to "Religion in The Simpsons" (which isn't up for deletion). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reinoe (talk • contribs) 23:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to The Annex. This isn't really an encyclopedia article, but someone obviously put a great deal of time and effort into it. It should be kept somewhere — just not on Wikipedia. *** Crotalus *** 23:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The person who put that effort into it hopefully saved it to their own hard drive. -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply. Given that there are over 100 edits by various people, I find it unlikely that any one person saved it to their hard drive. If a deletion occurs, Crotalus' suggestion to transwiki is probably the best course of action, anyway. -- Masterzora (talk) 00:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. Or, just ask a moderator to pull the deleted content from the log. Point is, a presumption about how much effort went into writing an article is irrelevant to a decision about deleting it. Sorry if I was too oblique towards that end. -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Reply. I'm certainly not disagreeing that effort is not an argument, but it's a fair note for a transwiki to a relevant wiki. Thank you for clarifying the purpose of your post, though. -- Masterzora (talk) 01:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Note. I've transed the bulk of the article to the Futurama wiki and done some cleanup as best I could, but I'm baffled as to how to repair the references. Help with this aspect would be appreciated. --Captain Infinity (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Cleanup There are sufficient secondary sources in the article to establish notability. While the article does suffer from a few WP:NOR issues, they are surmountable and cause for cleanup not deletion. -- Masterzora (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N, as it has not generated significant coverage. While there are a number of footnotes in the article, most of them refer the DVD commentary. The only published sources referred to are by the same author, and are about the Simpsons. RJC ^Talk 01:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons book has a section at the back devoted to how other series also have used religion, the sections cited in the article (pgs 229-235) focus solely on Futurama. There's also a second print source but it is only used very minorly. Star dust 8212 01:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The secondary sources don't really show notability here. --Phirazo 02:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. In this instance, the notability is in the show's satirical commentary about various faiths. Mandsford (talk) 03:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keepthis is a fairly good article for one of its sort. There are at least 3RSs besides the documentation for the DVDs, it is not written in an in-universe fashion, and it seems important to the show. Is "Transwikify to the Annex" one of the accepted outcomes of AfD? Don't we only suggest WMF projects as one of the results? DGG (talk) 12:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that an article is mostly from primary sources is not a reason for deletion if the material from the primary sources is appropriately sourced there and there is secondary content as well. "Largely" OR is similarly a matter to be solved by editing.DGG (talk) 12:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Stardust8212. Captain Infinity (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki; failing that, delete. I'm a Futurama fan, but I think it's inarguable that religion doesn't play a major enough role in Futurama to warrant its own article. The secondary sources don't establish that religion is a notable part of the show. Chardish (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is too long to be an annex and notability is supported by secondary sources cited by the article. Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 05:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe standard is notable, which in this contest means important in the show, not "extremely important".DGG (talk) 09:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with everything said by the first keep, Stardust8212 (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 15:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Secret ^account 01:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leo J. Meyer[edit]

This man was a United States Army officer during World War II, Korea, and Vietnam. This very long article, likely created and principally authored by a relative, is more a life story than a biographical encyclopedia entry. The problem is that unless I've missed something, there's no notability in it. The external links/external sources provide no information about Meyer specifically, only about the groups in which he served/commanded and a Smithsonian folklife exhibition. There's a claim that some of his scrimshaw work was featured in a book, but the title and/or ISBN of the book isn't listed for verification.

If all Bronze Star, Distinguished Service Medal, and other combat award/medal recipients other than the Medal of Honor are notable simply by receiving those decorations – and I don't believe that's the case – I can reach no other conclusion than the article should be deleted. KrakatoaKatie 22:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meyer's main claim to fame is for having been recognized by a military museum as one of only 303 to have won threeCombat Infantryman Badges. He won one in WW2, one in Korea, and one in Vietnam.That said I would like to see some details about what his actual military and combat experiences were in each of the wars: how was he in combat? Or was being in theater sufficient? The article on the badge implies actual combat. Few were in that role over such a long period.Edison (talk) 00:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless independent source can be found that shows specific interest in this individual (i.e. not just a name on a list). CitiCat^♫ 00:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although an accomplished and even distinguished military man, does not appear to have a particular claim to notability. Even the one thing Edison is saying is unique is shared by three hundred others. As for whether "few" were field-promoted looeys who became colonels in Vietnam, I expect that quite a few of the senior field officers in Vietnam had similar careers. --Dhartung | Talk 00:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sigh, I really hate to do it (despite WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:POKEMON) but, if we have room for hundreds of Pokemon characters, hundreds of cartoon episodes, and hundreds of random songs by garage bands, we have room for 303 men who were triple winners of the Combat Infantryman Badge and who were recognized by a military museum for that accomplishment with a marker and a ceremony. Thus three isn't an arbitrary number (as in what about four time or two time winners).Edison (talk) 03:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have room for them, sure, but there is nothing specifically notable asserted. I see no reason to regard it as a significant award demonstrating notabilty.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

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

Delete. Unfortunately, I also find no evidence to indicate notability criteria have been satisfied. Doctorfluffy (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I read this article, and I note what other editors say: "there's nothing notable about him." In one single incident, I think that's true - there's no VC or Medal of Honor, etc. But its the accumulation of medals across three wars (ie - multiple significant occurances) which I think means that Meyer easily passes WP:BIO if you read it fully. Are we saying that 16 independent references doesn't make "multiple independent sources"? And further that the award of 40 medals across 20 promotions doesn't satisfy the additional criteria of "significant recognized awards or honors" or a "widely recognized contribution"? There may not be a single book or a great GHit reference that says he is significant (remember, he came out of the army in 1969 - served another three years in intelligence which is unlikely to be referenced), but across 16 references his record proves WP:BIO. This is one article which, if we are an encyclopaedia and follow WP:5P, then this is the type of encyclopaedic content we should be striving to create and keep - its not original research, its well referenced, its not indiscriminate: and as a result it is encyclopaedic. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss Olympiad in Informatics[edit]

no claim of being notable Montchav (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no claim to notability, no third-party sources. Also delete the image. Sandstein (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have consistently deleted national competitions of this sort, keeping the major international ones. this is just a qualifying round. DGG (talk) 12:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete, without prejudice to a creation of a ontological investigations article under the same name. Neıl ☎ 11:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grounded relation[edit]

Seems like a piece of original research by an editor long gone. No traces in google or google books for the described meaning of the term. `'Míkka >t 22:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - For what's worth I never heard about it, nor can find about it anywhere. Goochelaar (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are some Jon Awbrey articles that are valid subjects, but simply exceedingly confused and in need of fixing. There are others which are about subjects that don't exist. Pragmatic maxim (AfD discussion) is in the former category. This appears to be in the latter. I saw it when I was doing Proposed Deletion patrol a couple of days ago. I couldn't find any way to fix it, or any sources discussing any such thing (including all of the alternative names that have been created as redirects). It's unverifiable. Uncle G (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable concept, and in this meaning a neologism. (I had prodded this article, but deletion was denied by an admin because of the Awbrey campaign.) --Lambiam 05:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One thing I wonder about is whether the "sequence" of sets involved is supposed to be indexed by finite ordinals, or by all ordinals. And what is the relationship between "grounded" relations as defined here, and well-founded relations, as that concept is usually defined? We probably should seek the opinion of user:Trovatore; he's our expert in this area. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment I never heard of it, and it seems a little silly to me -- the article gives no hint exactly when you would need to distinguish these from "ungrounded" relations. Also I'm not inclined to lean over backwards to give JA articles the benefit of the doubt. But there are a couple of Google Scholar hits that might be followed up -- this article mentions the notion of "grounded relation" in an outline, then never says anything more about it, in particular what it means. This one I'm not interested in paying 32 bucks for, but the Google Scholar blurb contains Rxy is a grounded relation if and only if it is logically, so the article apparently does say what a grounded relation is, even if we don't know what it says about it. If anyone has access to Axiomathes it might be worth looking up. --Trovatore (talk) 07:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The full sentence is: "Rxy is a grounded relation if and only if it is logically impossible for there to exist a z and a w with the same qualities (quality = substance or property) as x and y, respectively, but between which the relation R does not hold." This is not the definition or terminology of the author of the Axiomathes article, but a quotation from: Johansson, I.: 1989, Ontological Investigations, London: Routledge. --Lambiam 18:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So this not particularly related to the subject of the article, apparently. Goochelaar (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ According to both the current version and the last Jon Awbrey version, a "grounded relation" is for all intents and purposes exactly the same thing as a relation (mathematics) between n (non-empty) sets. He created this fork in January 2006, at a time when he was edit warring with Randall Holmes. Since Wikipedia is not a dictionary I see no use for this article. Even for a redirect it's probably not sufficiently notable. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice per Trovatore below. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ presumed OR. CRGreathouse (t | c) 21:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice per Trovatore, below. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice in the sense that someone might someday want to write up the Ontological Investigations meaning and, while I have no opinion on whether that deserves a WP article, it shouldn't be speedied under G4. --Trovatore (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emilia Arata[edit]

Contains no new info besides what is written about on the Big Brother Celebrity Hijack page. Is not notable. Maybe if she wins we can recreate.--Hiltonhampton (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect `'Míkka >t 22:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, but can have her own page once she becomes notable in her own right other than the show. Willirennen (talk) 01:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/expand. She already has notability outside Big Brother: Several hundred Google hits for her circus act, independent of Big Brother.[2]. Previously appeared on (with her brother) and won[3] the TV contest When Will I Be Famous. Has many hits on Google News as well [4], most but not all of which are connected to her appearance in Big Brother. JudahH (talk) 04:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep - Peripitus (Talk) 01:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Bullitt County Train Derailment[edit]

Fails WP:N and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: the claim (although unreferenced) "the largest in Kentucky's history" makes it notable. Generates ~13,000 google hits, i.e., was quite a buzz, and attracted federal government attention. Also, it is not exactly news: over a year now. `'Míkka>t 22:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Hmmm. News item to me. The territory we're in is "What is news", "What is encyclopedic...". Where's the line? Is the worst train wreck in Kentucky history worthy of encyclopedia? Who knows... I'd say 'news item', per (my own) nom myself. --AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there's something really substantial here. There are2200 derailments annually in the US alone. I'm not impressed that the EPA responded; that's their job. --Dhartung | Talk 00:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there appears to be significant coverage, like [5] and [6], both of which were written a year later. CitiCat^♫ 01:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was wrong about the Boeing 777 crash, but even the largest train derailment in the history of a particular state is not that noteworthy. Train cars sometimes get derailed, and sometimes homes are evacuated because of the contents of the trains. If this isn't already mentioned in the article about Bullitt County, Kentucky, a paragraph will suffice there. Mandsford (talk) 03:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - These kinds of Articles are significant and take time to develop, and, as Notability is not fleeting, it should be allowed time to see how well it developes. 3 WikiProjects have been added to the Talkpage & +5Cats to the Article, now mabey the right people will find/work on it. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 12:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' From the 2nd source mentioned above "it was the third worst in North America. The response plan coordinated .... 49 agencies for a swift response." That's sufficient. DGG (talk) 12:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly notable; needs cleanup and sourcing. Everyking (talk) 08:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per CitiCat's sources: given the scale of the incident - "3rd worst in North America", I'd say this is highly notable. - Neparis (talk) 02:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Largest train wreck in a state (US states being the size of a country). Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 07:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but needs expansion and attention. According to WHAS 11, it was the third-worst rail disaster for CSXT in North America. It also appears to be getting news coverage on its one-year anniversary (such as in WAVE 3's story). The current version of the article doesn't address that, but it should. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. There was a clear consensus. This is actually a WP:BIO1E situation and key players in the cup run should be included in a comprehensive section in the club article or, if it is considered sufficiently notable, possibly even a separate page. TerriersFan (talk) 01:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Evans (football goalkeeper)[edit]

Originally PROD'ed by myself on the grounds that this football player has never played professionally. PROD contested on the grounds that Since he's played in the Third Round for the lowest-ranked team ever to reach that stage, I'd say he's pretty notable ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What is the current criteria on non-league players playing in latter stages of the FA Cup? Peanut4 (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's another one with similar notability - Vaughan Thomas. Peanut4 (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That one should go too, but I'll refrain from bulking it into this nomination given that at least one person's already !voted ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO as he has not played in a fully-professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The reason why I contested the PROD was not because I specifically believe this article should be saved, but because I felt that someone needed to play devil's advocate. I don't believe we've ever established specific notability criteria for non-league players in the latter stages of the FA Cup. However, Chasetown are the lowest-ranked team ever to reach that stage of the tournament, so that should count for something. – Pee Jay 22:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not illogical for the article on Chasetown F.C. to have a section on this year's impressive cup run. Any information about notable players during that run (which Evans was) could easily be merged into that. Grutness...wha? 00:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I might be persuaded if it had been a top flight team he had knocked out, but it was only Port Vale. Apart from that, and a bit of POV and a copyvio photo, the article really does not add up to much. Qwghlm (talk) 12:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per usual WP:BIO concerns about footballers who have only played non-league in England. The bit about Chasetown being the lowest ranked side to ever compete in the 3rd Round is open to interpretation as well. - fchd (talk) 13:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Spebi 00:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John McAll[edit]

Non-notable musician/composer who does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. The only source provided is MySpace, which is unreliable. Mattinbgn\^talk 21:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a Google search shows that Mr McAll has appeared in a number of concert line ups individually and as a member of a band, but there's nothing which confirms the claims made in the article and I don't think that he meets the relevant notability criteria. --Nick Dowling (talk) 23:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nick, and as nn. --Tom (talk - email) 06:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC Orderinchaos 15:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accountability mechanisms in local governments in Kerala[edit]

Essay-style article on rather arcane topic. Dougie WII (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See other related articles by same originating editor:

Tribunal for Local Governance in Kerala : A Pioneering Initiative in Resolution of Disputes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Decentralisation in Kerala: Problems and Prospects (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Decentralisation Initiatives and Local Governance in Kerala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Types of decentralisation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Comment: I have moved these discussions here as they are substantially similar. There may be one or two comments on the old discussion pages which have been lost, but I have moved the pages to the oldest discussion which had the most comments. Apologies if one or two contributions are missing, but I felt this was the most efficient way to discuss the articles. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I originally tried to PROD this article. I agree it should be deleted. Reads like an essay. It's synthesis of other research makes it original research and the lack of in-line referencing means that it cannot be determined what is OR and what is cited research. Parts of it could be incorporated into Kerala. Gillyweed (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "The purpose of this paper is to examine those accountability mechanisms existing in the local governence scenario in Kerla. ...", violates WP:NOR. Sandstein (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. non-encyclopedic political instruction manual for a local administration somewhere on Earth `'Míkka >t 22:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete This is an important debate for a country that is home to 1.2 billion people. While I agree that it is not in the Wikipedia format, and contains original research, deleting it would be a drastic way of tackling its current inadequacies. --59.95.19.251 (talk) 03:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and encourage editor to contribute to existing articles such as Decentralization (have done so on his/her talk page.) Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please examine objectively before deletion

Please make an objective examination of the article before deleting the articles. I am the largest collector of books on decentralisation in India and can say authoritatively that the contents are undisputed facts and not personal perceptions. Many of the points are from official government records. As well, my ignorance of editing made it imperfect. I can make it better by learning the editing techniques. Regarding references, I can attribute innumerable.

See for example the reference list in the Kerala Decentralisation : Problems and Prospects, those problems are mainly consolidated on the basis of a study by Institute of Rural Management, Anand - a most respected institution in the country.

K Rajasekharan, Creator of the article

NB :- I donot know writing my original name infringes the rules of Wiki. If so, kindly excuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajankila (talk • contribs) 12:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unencylopedic essay, reads like somebody copy-pasted their homework into Wikipedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Original research/synthesis. May I also recommend:

Panchayat Feminism at the gram panchayath in kerala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
...being bundled into this AfD as it appears to be from the same stable? --WebHamster 16:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. John254 03:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BKD llp[edit]

Claims to be the tenth biggest CPA firm in the U.S. Google gets 163 hits - you'd think such a remarkable corporation would get more. No references of any sort. Has been speedied multiple times before. JuJube (talk) 21:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - your google is bad. I have found 21,000 hits, of which first 200 pages are all about it (didn't look further). In the future please always provide your google search link. `'Míkka >t 22:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Did you open any of the hits; every one on the first three pages is either self-published or trivial in its coverage. I see nothing YET that indicates to me that independent, reliable sources have covered this company in any sort of meaningful detail. If you have found sources that are all three of these: 1) independent 2) reliable and 3) show some depth of coverage then please provide links to those specific web pages. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. --Eastmain (talk) 01:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References are good stuff. I struck through my prior vote. Please look to use the references to possibly help expand the article. It could use some beefing up now, but this is clearly a company with widespread coverage. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note article looks much better now, so I'll withdraw my nomination. JuJube (talk) 12:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kommandant[edit]

Non-notable band, no more known than 25,000 other bands on metal-archives.com May be self-promotion, fan made. -RiverHockey (talk) 20:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. No claim of notability made; fails WP:MUSIC. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 22:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:BAND, and redirect to Commandant or wherever. Sandstein (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable, no sources. Cixilibrium (talk) 02:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN band, lacking any real cites. Bearian (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 02:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mandarin Middle School[edit]

Per WP:OUTCOMES and the fact that this article asserts no other criteria for notability other than the fact that it is a middle school. The current trend is that while high schools are generally considered notable, middle schools and elementary schools are not. Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 20:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete, nn. Chris (クリス) (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete unless you can do better than "it's a big school with lots of hallways". Mandsford (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable middle school. Malinaccier (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, did you look for sources and/or try merging it to its school district first? AnteaterZot (talk) 05:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Possibly speedy, as ((db-context)). Even with the "reference" (which appars not to have any editorial control), there may not be sufficient context to identify the school. "Lots of hallways", indeed. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:SCHOOL. ♦Ace of Silver♦ 22:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008-09 Vancouver Canucks season[edit]

The result was snowball delete - very clear consensus has formed to delete this, and as such, there's no need to extend this process longer. Maxim_(talk) 14:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contested prod. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The current season is not over yet. There really is nothing that can be written about Vancouver's 2008-09 season until after this one is complete, as this empty template shows. Recreate after this year is done and activities related to the 2008-09 season begin. Reso lute 20:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Simply because it is too early for this article. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think you're right; this only holds a place in line, and I don't particularly care for articles one particular season for one particular sports team. On the other hand, such things seem to be tolerated (Wikipedia really IS a sports page) so I don't think "too early" applies. The 2008-09 season's news begins before the season, with players drafted, signed to contract, etc. Mandsford (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but as of 23:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC), it is still too early. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing that can be written about the 2008-09 season yet as anything that would happen to affect that season would be happening now during the 2007-08 season and would thus belong on the 2007-08 season page. In general the hockey project considers the start of the next season to be the entry draft in June which is just after the Stanley Cup playoffs which mark the end of the previous season. Delete per WP:Crystal. -Djsasso (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Let's wait until the 2007-08 season has ended, before creating the article. GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too early. Malinaccier (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lets use some reason here people. When some news for this season happens, then we can create an article. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. —Pparazorback (talk) 02:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too early per nom. Just added the rest of the 2008-09 to another afd. -Pparazorback (talk) 02:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it's snowing... Mandsford (talk) 03:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I do believe you're right. Maxim_(talk) 14:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Non-Admin Closure. Tiddly-Tom 18:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anders Skauge[edit]

Subject appears to be completely non-notable. Minor politician with no information about him. I'm half-tempted to speedy him under A7. Gromlakh (talk) 20:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a politician who served as a legislator in the national parliament - so a really easy decision. Little info on the internet because of bias towards the last decade. Punkmorten (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:Bio#Politicians.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As everyone stated, he clearly meets politician's notability requirement as a national legislator. Even state legislators meet notability. matt91486 (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Neıl ☎ 11:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mongol alliances in the Middle-East[edit]

This page is yet another POV fork by PHG and represents a further attempt to avoid consensus discussion at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance. Multiple editors have asked him to stop this behavior, and yet he keeps creating more POV forks. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franco-Mongol alliance (modern interpretations) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franco-Mongol alliance (1258-1265) (which last also covers Franco-Mongol alliance (1265-1282) and Franco-Mongol alliance (1297-1304). Kafka Liz (talk) 20:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Though the article appears well-sourced, it is just more copy/paste information attempting to push a bias that the Mongols had a series of alliances. The article includes a long list of sources pasted from Franco-Mongol alliance, some of which have little or no information related to the new topic. It is disappointing that after several articles were AfDed yesterday, that PHG (talk · contribs) went and created another fork today, as this is very disruptive. We are requesting that all such POV forks be deleted, so that we can centralize discussions at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance and figure out what to do. --El on ka 20:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Could we just do a mass-delete of all these Franco-Mongol alliance forks? This topic is at most a footnote in history, and quite possibly a misreading of the sources, or even a hoax. Why are there so many Wikipedia articles when there are virtually zero verifiable references? Jehochman ^Talk 20:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only created 2 hours ago? This is ridiculous, I would have hoped PHG would have seen that there was a strong consensus that these forks were not acceptable. There is no need to have exactly the same information information under multiple titles. This is an especially a bad idea where the accuracy and neutrality of that information has been challenged. WjBscribe 20:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This hardly needs explanation now. This one is I am unhesitant to call a POV fork. Until controvery is settled, information need not be duplicated under various titles. Srnec (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is getting absurd. john k (talk) 20:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Before this angry bunch obviously pissed off by the user inquestion gets theirs, I would ask them to clearly explain fork of exactly what this page is. To me it seems a valid overview page and not near the mentioned Franco-Mongol alliance beyond summary section, which may be edited (er.... I guess...). `'Míkka >t 22:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. "push a bias that the Mongols had a series of alliances." WTH? Are you saying that a series of wikipedia articles are all false? Also "This is getting absurd" is hardly a valid reason for deletion. `'Míkka >t 23:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. The problem stems from a wide range of Mongol-alliance articles that one user has created. The reason for deletion is that the articles misrepresent sources and push original research. The user has been evading the consensus by creating multiple new articles whenever one gets deleted, or when his original research is removed. This looks like a big problem. Jehochman ^Talk 23:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mikka, sorry about the lack of information, it's mainly because this problem has grown so large, that it's taking too much time to re-explain the case at each new AfD. It seems like each time we deal with one article, PHG creates a couple more. :/ And we're not disputing all articles related to the Mongol Empire, we're simply disputing the "Mongol alliance" issue. For more info though, you may wish to review the thread at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Articles for deletion to see some of the other discussions that we are dealing with. You are welcome to join into discussions there, to help determine consensus. You may also find this useful to come up to speed on the POV dispute: User:Elonka/Mongol quickref. Best, --El on ka 23:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lets see if there is a need for an article split AFTER the issue is resolved on the orignal page Franco-Mongol alliance. Let's try pruning the original article of unneeded information/quotes/etc to get it to a more manageable size first. Plus, keeping the dispute to one page makes it easier for others to follow the discussion, and have input. When the article is split into too many POV forks, some can slip through the cracks. Ealdgyth | Talk 23:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. AFD is not for content disputes; please use dispute resolution to discuss mergers and splitting of articles.Biophys (talk) 00:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you left this vote and comment at the other AfD's as well. Please note that for the others the content is duplicated and so the AfD is not about content per se. This AfD is really about stopping the repetition of material whose accuracy and truthfulness is disputed. If I create an article with disptued content, I should not be allowed—before the disptue is finished—to repeat the disputed portion on many articles old or new. The content would be deleted in old articles. In this case we the community merely ask that it be deleted from a new article. If the whole purpose behind the article under consideration were not the spreading of a certain POV then I would merely vote to "Keep and delete duplicated disputed content", but it is the very idea of this article that spreads the disptued POV. The article, in a useful way, could be re-created later if the dispute settlement eventually reached allows for it. Srnec (talk) 05:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I know this is a rather arcane subject, but please just look at the sources. This article allows to explain the broad geopolitical structure of the Mongol alliances in the Middle East, and connects the various articles already put in place. It is not a repetition of content, as it rather puts into context the other materials and give many new sources related to the broad context of these alliances. It is perfectly legitimate and sourced. These diplomatic contacts and alliances are highly referenced in academic sources. By the way, I think I am through with creating new articles on this subject (broad picture/ each alliance/ template for navigation), so nobody has to worry about ever-spreading contibutions... and it should save unsubstanciated "POV-fork" accusations :). Regards PHG (talk) 09:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, merge back into main article until disputes are resolved. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Close as No consensus and Rewrite the entire series of articles This is not the way to handle editing disputes. There is apparently the simultaneous strategy of various people involved of trying to modify the articles, of trying to write additional ones, and simultaneous put them up for deletion. This is a confusing way to proceed. I would support anyone who wants to close this entire series of AfDs with a no-consensus, and a request to the parties to find a mediator. The question of whether the relationship was one of vassalage or alliance or occasional cooperation is not going to be settled by debating it at AfD--especially since the various parties at the time undoubtedly saw it very differently. Nor is the question of how to divide this extremely large subject with broad implications and a n enormous literature likely to find a consistent resolution from multiple AfDs. Closing them all with no consensus at this point is usually considered premature, but I think it would be justified as the only way likely to find a solution. If there could be a moratorium on the need to defend video, RPG, and other popular culture articles, and if we could agree on any sort of compromise solution at WP:FICTION and WP:EPISODE, I'd have time to give it a try as an informal mediator. I'd much rather work on history than on television series. DGG (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork on decidedly dodgy historical grounds •CHILLDOUBT• 18:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete merge back into main article, it does appear to be a pov fork.Bless sins (talk) 23:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I did not receive reasonable explanations how a general article of "Mongol alliances in the Middle-East" can be a POV fork of an individual item of "Franco-Mongol alliances". If there is a disputed piece, I don't see the problem to make it exist in one article by making wikilinks in other articles. There is a basic rule that a summary section in a general article (the discussed one) cannot have any text not included in the "Franco-Mongol" page defined as ((main)) for this section. This rule closes a possible loophole for a perceived fork. `'Míkka >t 19:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the article is that it's largely speculation. Material is being placed here from deleted articles or that was removed from other articles by consensus. Unfortunately, the impressive list of references is window dressing. The references frequently do not say what the article says. Jehochman ^Talk 19:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mikka, though at some point it might be worth having an article on Mongol relations in the Middle-East, this article isn't it. The primary purpose of this article, as written, is as a WP:COATRACK to push the concept that the Mongols had multiple alliances, including with entities that, in actuality, they didn't have alliances with. For example, their relationship with the Franks was never an alliance, their relationship with Antioch wasn't an alliance, and their relationship with Armenia wasn't an alliance. Especially with Antioch and Armenia, the relationship was that of overlord-subject, meaning the target countries had surrendered, not allied. But this article is trying to push the POV that they were equal-party alliances, even though they weren't. The article is also being used to push an original research concept of a "North-South axis" and an "East-West axis", which to my knowledge are not discussed in any other work of history -- this "axis" angle is something that PHG came up with on his own, and is a clear violation of WP:NOR, the "novel interpretation" clause. PHG has been seeking to rewrite history in multiple articles on Wikipedia (at last count, he's been pushing false information into about 50 different articles, see Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#List of articles for review), and when he couldn't get the information pushed into existing articles, he was going around and creating entirely new articles to push his POV. Two have been deleted so far, and a half-dozen more are under AfD with a clear consensus to delete (though they haven't been closed yet). We've been discussing this at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance, and the consensus was, and is, that we need to get rid of all these POV forks, and concentrate discussion in one place to figure out how to proceed with cleanup. So again, this "Mongol alliances in the Middle East" article is biased, it's a duplication of biased information elsewhere, it is not needed at this time, it just adds to existing confusion, and it should be deleted. --El on ka 20:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka, I quite understand the possibility you are talking about. However I don't see nomination for deletion of articles Byzantine-Mongol alliance, Armeno-Mongol alliance, etc. As long as these article exist, the discussed one is a valid summary, regardless the quality/quantity of references (which, quite frankly I am not even taking into the consideration now). If you are saying that the terminology "North-South axis" is OR, remove it from the texts in question (the term "axis" means operating multi-sided treaties, not just a bunch of geographically sorted treaties; that I may see). `'Míkka >t 20:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check the references please. Reliable sources don't say what the article says. Jehochman ^Talk 20:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mikka, thanks for keeping an open mind. :) And you're right, the Byzantine-Mongol alliance is probably salvageable. Armeno-Mongol alliance is probably going to get deleted/merged eventually, but since it's in more of a grey area, it's being left alone for now, as we decided to go with the low-hanging fruit of articles that needed immediate deletion. Remember, we're fighting a multi-front war here, with biased information in about 50 articles, so we're having to prioritize cleanup efforts. My guess (and this is just a guess) is that the way things will go after we get a handle on things, is that the Franco-Mongol alliance article will be renamed as "Crusader-Mongol relations" and will then incorporate any necessary information about Middle East diplomacy, including Armenian relations, and a link to the Byzantine article. But that still leaves us with this "Mongol alliances in the Middle-East" article, which is still inappropriate, and should go away. It's biased, it's OR, and it's disruptive to even have it around. If consensus exists in the future to re-create it (which I highly doubt), it can be re-created easily enough, but right now it's just adding to confusion. Nobody wants it, except for PHG. And the really irritating thing is that after we'd expressed concerns, after we'd told him to stop with POV forks, after we'd submitted multiple AfDs on the other articles, what did he do? He went and made this "Mongol alliances in the Middle East" article, within hours. That's why there are so many angry voices at the top of this AfD, and why people came tumbling in rapidly, is because the creation of this article was clearly disruptive. It wasn't created as thoughtful scholarship, it was mainly just a copy/paste of POV information. Just take a look at the long list of sources on the article -- most of them have nothing to do with it, they're just copy/pasted from the Franco-Mongol alliance article.[7] So as soon as PHG created it, we got it tagged as disputed within a half-hour, and sent it to AfD within an hour or two after that. If PHG makes any other POV forks, we're going to tag and nom those too, because he has to start working with consensus, instead of against it. --El on ka 20:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DGG wrote: "I think I am through with creating new articles on this subject" so I think y'all may calm down a bit and figure out whether we are talking about POV of a wikipedian or POV of some historians. Unfortunately I have no resources to look into the matter seriously, but on the first glance the article is substantiated thoroughly not only by references, but by quotations (some of them do use the word "axis" in kinda informal sense). I am aware that there still may be WP:SYNTH issues, but I would suggest to consider salvaging this article. It is a widespread image of Mongols as ruthless conquerers, but they were also cunning politicians as well, so I see nothing unusual that they made various alliances/treaties (btw, may be the latter word may be better to describe their political relations), especially when their drive westwards halted. `'Míkka >t 01:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is well sourced and well deserving of further expansion. Given the abundance of scholalry material regarding the subject I also don't think it's an arcane subject just not one that has been given proper attention in Wikipedia until recently. Many articles have cross refrenced material, I fail to see how that's a cause for deletion.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 21:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin: FYI, the above user is under ArbCom sanctions for disruptive behavior in this topic area. See Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. --Elonka 00:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - a)This "notice" is plain and simply harassment. I don't see how Elonka's ad hominem attack has any baring on my vote. b)That is a lie and irrelevant as i'm merely under revert limitation along with a dozen or so other users on certain topics which this one barely touches and arguably is not within its scope. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks! Redfarmer (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty damn thorough already. I think that anybody in the Wikipedia community who ever had an opinion about Mongol alliances in the Middle East... has made a comment. Mandsford (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete per nom by snow. Bearian (talk) 21:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Future Unknown[edit]

Non-notable album from band with no article. Article is orphaned. Torc2 (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable band, and the album was never actually released (as far as I can tell.) -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above. Malinaccier (talk) 23:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with The Rising (band) or Michael Johns (singer) when they are (re)created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.173.106.101 (talk) 22:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Secret ^account 01:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Princess Fiona's friends[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of Princess Fiona's friends

Non-notable characters from the third Shrek movie, and as they are already covered by that article, this is just an in-universe plot repetition of that articles content, so it should be deleted as duplicative. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article isn't the that well sourced, but apart from that it's just non-notable and not within our scope. Could be moved to the shreeck wiki atr wikia though.--Phoenix -wiki 20:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything relevant to List of fairy tale characters in Shrek and then Delete. JuJube (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable at all in our universe. Malinaccier (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pandayan[edit]

A very small community in the Philippines that lacks notability and available sources. Starczamora (talk) 19:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Almost all barangays in the Philippines are not notable enough in themselves to merit individual articles in Wikipedia and there is a problem of getting enough reliable sources to create a full-fledged article. A simple Google search does not turn up any non-trivial sources that refer to this barangay. For similar deletion debates see [1] and [2]. --seav (talk) 00:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as parts of towns, barangays do not meet the automatic qualifications given by WP:LOCAL and WP:OUTCOMES.--Lenticel ^(talk) 22:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per aboves. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 07:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Meycauayan City, Bulacan until there is a significant coverage for it to have a separate article. --bluemask ^(talk) 14:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep, with the option of merge if it is discussed properly with on the article talk page. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merlin (Shrek)[edit]

Non-notable character from a really bad movie. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Shrek. I'm not sure if the character from the movie warrants it's own article. however to the nom, please leave your opinion of the movie out of the nomination. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The movie is crap, and remember, Wikipedia is not censored. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's not censored, but there is such a thing as being WP:CIVIL. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...toward a movie? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL is tenuously possible as it may be construed as an attack on people who like the movie, but that's really not the issue. The real problem is that, as a deletion argument, it' a WP:NPOV violation. -- Masterzora (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of the movie has nothing to do with whether or not this article should be deleted anyway. I don't know if this is a civility thing or not, but it sure isn't conducive to a spirit of collaboration. Rray (talk) 04:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the country I am from, the United States, we have something called "free speech", and it applies even if people don't like what you say, and I won't be censored because people like a crappy movie. Besides, it was at most an aside, and the notability issue is what we are addressing. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Despite free speech, Wikipedia has many policies that limit what you should say on Wikipedia. Nobody is attempting to censor you. The problem is that you seemed to use the quality of the movie as a deletion rationale (your wording implies that this should be kept if it were a good movie). We welcome you to your opinion, but AfD is about the merits of the article, not of the subject. -- Masterzora (talk) 06:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was just meant to be a side comment, as the thought of this character made all those bad memories of seeing the movie in the theatre come into my mind. But your right, the only issues is Notability, not my personal feelings on the movie. I love Shrek and like Shrek 2! :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Wildthing61476. Also note that while bringing up WP:CIVIL is somewhat questionable in this case, a movie being really bad is not a reason for deletion (or is it? Let me know so I can nominate Lost in Translation :P). JuJube (talk) 19:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close Completely inappropriate nomination. You usually don't show your true bias when you nominate many articles for deletion on a certain subject, but you slipped up today for whatever reason. WP:IHATEIT is no excuse to nominate this, and this isn't cleanup either. This appears to be in bad faith, and brings all of your other concentrated nominations into question. Admins have already said you're doing a bangup job though. The rules may no longer apply to you, which is a shame. 75.65.91.142 (talk) 14:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No such thing is occurring; if you actually read the nomination, you would notice it says there is a lack of notability. Again, it is true I dislike Shrek 3, but I didn't nominate this article for that reason, nor have I done that with a host of other movies or fictional things I dislike because they don't have notability issues. This article either needs multiple reliable sources or should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's a whole navbox footer for Shrek character articles, and this one is part of it. It's usual for films to have separate articles on characters. This one fits quite well. I agree it can use some footnotes, but there's no hurry, people will provide them. Also, "really bad movie" that was written in the nomination is a personal opinion that has nothing to do with this at all. --Tikilounge (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being included in a "navbox" is not an assertion of notability, nor is saying that other character articles exist. This one must prove notability, and just saying it has some is not sufficient. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TeenSpot[edit]

Article is written more like an advertisement, and does not "describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance." Barely asserts any notability, aside from listing sourced traffic stats. Also has only trivial mentions in articles, often just listing the site along with other social networks. -- pb30<talk> 18:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominating:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has a mention on Dateline and a controversy with another site, I think it could show merit. Let this AfD stand as a warning to the articles editors, if it's in the same shape in a month I don't think it'll survive another AfD. Padillah (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEB requires far more than a mention, it requires significant coverage. A controversy with another site means nothing unless that has been covered in significant detail by a reliable source.--Crossmr (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#INTERNET and a lack of notability in accordance with WP:WEB. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 09:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That goes for both articles, by the way - the second nom could probably be deleted per WP:SPEEDY (A7). --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 09:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has been mentioned on Dateline NBC and ITN News, and is linked to by a number of articles for albums by bands. If the editors of those articles think the site's review is notable, I think then the site itself must have some notoriety. It could definitely use some rewrite and editing on its bulk description/list section. When making the article, I was hoping that someone with more editing experience would have taken the reigns on making the article's content more encyclopedic. Smeggysmeg (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A recent edit should alleviate some of your concerns regarding its style. Smeggysmeg (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This dateline "mention" is just that a mention. WP:WEB requires significant coverage. Other wikipedian editors can't establish notability. the guidelines are very clear on what establishes notability and I don't see any of it here.--Crossmr (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article should be kept because the website has a large user base, and becuase it is part of many ongoing controversies regarding child safety online. I don't see how it is any less relevant than the article on Myspace or Bebo. Bms0076 (talk) 04:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2005 TS Top 100

Delete Insignificant forum glory. Smeggysmeg (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note My opinion that this second article should be deleted was registered above, but I'm re-mentioning it here for clarity's sake. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 22:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks! Redfarmer (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 15 pages of Google for "TeenSpot" and no sources whatsoever. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 01:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of notability per mentioned above. Earthbendingmaster 01:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wilderness Survival[edit]

Should be deleted in accordance with the criteria listed at Wikipedia:Notability (music). 0kdal (talk) 17:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added to this page cause I love their music I heard it on 91x in san diego and read a review of their first cd in a best of local music issue in 2005. they're on itunes, great band, have had numerous reviews in national mag's, friend of mine heard their music on a commercial. google 'em —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rooski (talk • contribs) 06:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC) — Rooski (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC as no notability is asserted whatsoever through third-party sources. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 08:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this source has been sited http://www.stylusmagazine.com/reviews/wilderness-survival/we-were-21-in-03.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.56.188 (talk) 09:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One review in an online magazine is not sufficient to establish notability. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 21:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks! Redfarmer (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dachannien. Fails WP:MUSIC. Redfarmer (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources to indicate notability per WP:BAND. Doctorfluffy (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-per nomination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truco9311 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No label, no evidence of publication. Some airtime on 91X is great and all, but not evidence of notability. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus for deletion, if you wish to have this article merged, start a merge discussion. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giant spider[edit]

No secondary sources to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Having giant spiders in a few games is not enough for an article. Pagra shtak 17:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete or complete rewriting Merge to Cultural depictions of spiders (see below) and if necessary new pages with names like depictions of spiders in movies and depictions of spiders in games (see List of undead-themed video games) They are "Giant Spider"-like creatures in a great number of fictional universes with variable notability but this article is pointless in listing them since we can reach the appropriate token if it's notable enough (e.g. Shelob), or it's in a list, or it's mentioned in another article, or, well, it's not notable. However as Uncle G says, it's possible to conserve the article in a completely different form, similar to the ghost article or Zombies in popular culture article. -- Cenarium (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please look for sources yourself before nominating things for deletion on grounds of notability. Everything, from Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Notability through to User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage, tells you to do this. If you had, you'd have seen that this subject, and the more general subject of the "big bug" movie, is discussed in a vast number of sources. Indeed, one book, ISBN 1877743097, goes so far as to have two tables, spanning pages 288–291, of films that have entomological elements, including several with giant spiders. Big bug movies are discussed in several places throughout ISBN 089950681X. ISBN 1404208488 discusses The Deadly Mantis and several other big bug movies. (I've just cited it in two articles that lacked citations.) The Insect Fear Film Festival once had an all-spider event. ISBN 0786400935 talks about the various films in which wire-controlled giant spider special effects have appeared, from Tarantula to Cat Women of the Moon, including who built them. ISBN 1900486237 mentions how the giant spider from Earth vs. The Spider was tinted blue and used in Journey to the Seventh Planet. ISBN 0786402709 discusses in detail how the giant spider special effects for Earth vs. The Spider were created by Paul Blaisdell.
There's possibly enough source material for a Featured Article on big bug movies and "atomic monster" movies alone, and possibly even giant spiders in movies specifically, here. And as you can see, we have a couple of missing articles in this area, too. Deletion isn't required. More writing is. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's great if there's enough source material for an article about big bug movies. This, however, is not an article about big bug movies. It's an article about giant spiders in role-playing games. Sure, the lead has the word "movies" in it, but that's a bit of a red herring—the body of the article is specifically about giant spiders in role-playing games, and the content is little more than a list of three games that have a giant spider. I stand by my nomination, with no prejudice against the creation of an article about giant spiders in movies or fiction in general, if someone wishes to create it. Pagra shtak 19:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the article about giant spiders in movies. It says so. That the article is a stub that describes its purported subject and contains some disconnected facts is not a reason for deletion. It's a reason for expansion. We don't delete stubs; we expand them. Please familiarize yourself with our Wikipedia:Article development process and our Wikipedia:Editing policy. Articles can start out incomplete, sometimes woefully so. When you see an incomplete article, deletion is not the tool that you should reach for. You should be trying to make it better. You are here to write an encyclopaedia, not to delete one. Uncle G (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your point would be made more forcibly if you dropped the condescension. I don't see the point of cluttering up this AFD with this conversation, so I'll continue this on your talk page. Pagra shtak 22:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(I think you have not seen my edit before posting) I agree with the look for sources yourself motto that I've adopted but it's not the main problem I think, if some "giant spider" of some fictional universe deserves an article, let's make an article. But an article on all of them is ridiculous, how to include Shelob ? If we want to make an article on Giant Spiders (cultural representations and so on), it must not have the appearance of a list. -- Cenarium (talk) 18:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've just shown how to include Shelob, as I have I. Uncle G (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I suspected, there is already an article on this topic: Cultural depictions of spiders, it deals with giant spiders among others. I think we should merge Giant spider in this article. It's possible to create articles like depictions of spiders in movies and depictions of spiders in games. -- Cenarium (talk) 21:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm asking myself why the heck I didn't find that when I went and read spider looking for it whilst composing the above rationale.
I've been trying to decide whether I'd aim for, as above, an article on giant spiders in movies specifically or an article on big bug and atomic monster movies, which is in fact a more general topic than just spiders alone. (There are also ants. ☺) Given that we have cultural depictions of spiders already addressing the former, albeit that it is not nearly as in-depth as the aforementioned sources indicate it could be, the decision is somewhat simpler. ☺ So the question is whether the best course of action is to merge this article into cultural depictions of spiders or to rename and refactor it into a basis for a big bug/atomic monster movies article. Frankly, the D&D content isn't useful for a movie article, but the question is whether it is useful for a cultural depictions article, either. One of the problems with cultural depictions articles is that they tend to grow as laundry lists of individual depictions, as though a list of examples suddenly becomes an article once it passes some magic critical mass. We probably want some prose talking about RPG depictions in general to tie these two examples to, if we were to add it as a cultural depiction. And we don't have that here.
Of course, a big bug and atomic monster movies article would have to cross-link to cultural depictions of spiders#In film and television, as a sub-set of the genre, and the latter would have to have a ((main)). That's a given. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 02:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the laundry list flood gates would open, and the article hasn't even started listing spiders in video games, which would create an even bigger list. I'd say create the big bug movie article from scratch, as nothing in this article is about that. Then this article can be either merged/redirected/whatever as needed. If there is substantial content for large spiders specifically in movies, it can be split off from the big bug article down the road. Pagra shtak 06:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Cultural depictions of spiders. --Paularblaster (talk) 23:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think a merge into Cultural depictions of spiders would be satisfactory. Any objections to me withdrawing this in favor of a merge or merge discussion? Pagra shtak 23:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate. Subject is non-notable, but were this only a D&D character, it would redirected to Dungeons & Dragons. What we have here is a three-way redirect, with potential for more (including Cultural depictions of spiders). Convert to a disambiguation page, and let the IPC listificators append links to every giant spider related article in Wikipedia. Since it is possible something notable may eventually be named "Giant Spider", it might be a good idea to then move this page to Giant Spider (disambiguation), retaining the redirect from Giant Spider. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand as per Uncle G. Definite potential for an article here. Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cultural depictions of spiders per User:Cenarium's suggestion. An excellent idea. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 08:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge material. Cultural depictions of spiders seems like a decent enough treatment; I don't think giant spiders need a specific treatment, even when they clearly are worth discussing somewhere. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 it is non-notable, I also think that the deletion arguments could of made a stronger case, and point to the actual policies and citing the reasons for non-notability. Also recommend the article creator to refer to WP:YFA for reference. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kennington Skateboarding Bowl[edit]

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

This skatepark doesn't seem notable. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sure seems like just another skatepark with no distinguishing features or third-party coverage to show its notability. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 17:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no Google hits, the only sources on the entire article are pictures of the park from Google Earth. Totally NN Doc Strange (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Not so. There is also a link in the external links section which goes to the Lambeth Council website (essentially a government website) where the facility is mentioned (albeit briefly) as part of the park's sports facilities.Wk 85 (talk) 09:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem like a particurlarly notable or unique skate park. It's mentioned in the Kennington Park article timeline, and I think that is sufficient. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to differentiate it from any other skate park anywhere else. Red Zion^X 20:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I made the page. I don't see why it needs to seem "notable" to you guys. I could identfy thousands upon thousands of wikipedia entries that do not seem the least bit notable to me. But, unless they are full of lies, misinformation or advertising, why delete them. I could understand your point if I had made a page about myself, for example, as I am not a famous person and there is no reason anyone would ever have for looking me up. But, articles relating to place are surely not of the same nature. If I had made a page about a sculpture by George Tinworth in Kennington Park which is equally obscure I'm sure no one would try to delete it because sculpture just seems to be something more apt for an encyclopedia. I believe that where "place" is concerned, as opposed to "person", there should be no preference as to what is allowed to be documented on this site. As I said, an article about me has no right to be on here - but if we can document statues, public houses, public parks, streets, roads, and, indeed skateparks, i don't see what is wrong with my article on Kennington Bowl. Of course, I will admit that I am a novice where wikipedia is concerned, and I will also admit that the article as it stands now is in need of further information. But is that not the whole point of wikipedia: others will add more and hone what is there already, making it a better article. As for it not being a unique skatepark, first of all that is simply incorrect and I challenge you to present me with a skatepark (other than Meanwhile Two, mentioned in the article) that bears the vaguest resemblance to it. Furthermore, why must it be unique to warrant a article on wikipedia. Kenninngton Park itself is not particlarly unique, there are many parks like it in london. Your reasons for deletion confuse me. Anyway, I'm sure I wrote all this for nothing as it will be deleted because I'm pretty sure no one will vote for its continuance. User:wk_85

Comment For one, you should sign your comments with four (4) tildes (~) also you should read WP:NOT to see why this isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. You say there are many parks like it in London. Well, what makes this park more notable than any of these? Doc Strange (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You've misunderstood me. Kennington Park, the green public park in which kennington skateboarding bowl is situated, is not particularly unique, as parks go. Kennington skateboarding bowl, as far as skate facilities in the UK are concerned, is rather unique (hence my challenge above). On second thoughts Kennington Park (not the bowl) is perhaps not the best example of a mediocre place which has every right to documentation on wikipedia given that it has various historical events connected with it. I can see I'm fighting a losing argument here but I just want to say this: kennington skateboarding bowl has a rich history since its construction in the late 70s, it has been a hub of skateboarding activity with fluctuating popularity. If the fact that it is not much documented online elsewhere is reason enough to delete it then go ahead. Part of the reason I wanted to make the article was because I felt it was an important part of south london's skateboarding history (and current culture) which had unfairly inadequate mention online. Wk 85 (talk) 09:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bhogali Bihu[edit]

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

No clear explanation as to what the subject of the article is. No clear indication of notability. Written more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. SWik78 (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~:Strong Delete Certainly fails WP:NOTABILITY--SkyWalker (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep : Iam changing the vote to keep. Here is what google shows [8].--SkyWalker (talk) 07:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I've made a few minor edits to the article to make it clear what this is. I've also added an external link for verification purposes. I'm completely unfamiliar with the subject, so I won't comment one way or the other on notability. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 16:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 07:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The rationale behind the nomination is utterly flawed.
The subject of the article is about a festival that marks the end of the harvest season. A cursory glance in the first sentence of the article gives it away. Very subjective reasoning for deletion.

A plain vanilla Google search is a probable indication of notability. Based on the search results, we know it exists, so therefore it might be notable. Now, folk festivals such as these are notable and cannot be disputed. This crashes the notability clause. If you want credible sources for notability, please do a Google News search: [9]

Essay-style articles are not, and have never been a clause for deletion.

Please remember that just because a new author has failed put in references, written it in a style that he is not aware of, it does not mean that the article is not notable. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. See Bihu for context. utcursch | talk 11:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've just added a few sources from the many readily available online. This festival is clearly notable, as the nominator could easily have discovered by doing a couple of basic searches before bringing it to AfD. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree with all the points noted above for keeping the article. Over a period of time, it will grow: User:Angela/Stubs. --Bhadani (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel L. Doctoroff[edit]

Daniel L. Doctoroff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is a barely modified version of a New York City Press Release that is non-encyclopedic. Given the overwhelming bias, I believe that this article is not salvageable. JDCMAN (talk) 16:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Doctoroff is definitely notable and this article could be trimmed of any NPOV with a quick edit. I don't see an attempt by the nominator to cut the trimmings before bringing this to AfD. Darkspots (talk) 16:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't attempt to edit the article because it is from a press release. I'd make an attempt to trim the article, but I'd cut it to shreds. Doctoroff may be a notable figure, and he should have an article, but I can't see this becoming remotely useful. The only information that I can see is fine is his name, his date of birth, his position, when he served, and a little bit of personal life information. The article is full of weasel words and is mainly fluff.--JDCMAN (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stubbing out a bad article about a notable public figure is totally fine and preferable to this process. It can be built back up; there's a ton of NYT articles about him that meet the standard of WP:RS. Darkspots (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd make an attempt to trim the article, but I'd cut it to shreds. — And you think that deleting the entire article instead is a less drastic course of action? Du courage! Use your edit button and edit. Be bold! Uncle G (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Darkspots. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 16:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and gut; this article needs help but Doctoroff meets our notability standards. Replacing the article (it's not that long) with a neutral three-sentence stub would be a good start. — brighterorange (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now president of Bloomberg, a very major corporation, and enough for notability. The article needs to be rebalanced--there should be enough NYC news sources. DGG (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly salvageable -- Amazins490 (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Owens[edit]

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

Non Notable subject, no significant independent sources Gnan garra 15:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Longhair\^talk 20:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - So Mr Owens has a job, an uncle and a wife. We are glad for him, but this does not make him notable. Goochelaar (talk) 00:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to meet WP:BIO (entertainers). --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 08:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable, relief midnight to dawn if someone is away. Although, I did find a few blog entries verifying the receding hairline... •Florrie•leave a note• 04:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. And I wonder if he's related to me, I have a well and truly receded hairline :/ Orderinchaos 14:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 02:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Emily Sander[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Emily Sander

Articles for deletion/Murder of Emily Sander

Murder of Emily Sander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a news report. This murder has been resolved. Murders happen every day, they do not belong on here. Metal Head (talk) 15:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- topic is significant and received a lot of media coverage nationwide in the US. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 15:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It recieved information because of the killer fleeing to Mexico. Other than that, it is just a murder. Murders happen every day. Each murder does not deserve it's own page. It's now old news. If anything, make a page over the killer. The Murder of Emily Sander is a headline for a news story, not a title for an encyclopedia entry.Metal Head (talk) 15:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not temporary. Additionally, title in line with other articles on similar topics. See Murder of Adam Walsh. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 16:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - we just had this conversation, last month. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, we did have this conversation, and was it you who said that it would get deleted after it died down? Either way. It is still just a murder. The murder was resolved, the murderer has been caught. It is no longer notable.A short burst of news reports about a topic does not necessarily constitute evidence of long-term notability. If anything, this article needs re-written to either be about Emily Sander and possibly an article about her killer. Her murder is not encyclopedia worthy.Metal Head (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and perhaps speedy close since we just discussed this. There's plenty of information on this case for an encyclopedia article, and there are plenty of independent reliable sources with substantial coverage. This clearly satisfies WP:N. — brighterorange (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for no real deletion rationale. How is a murder "resolved"? Has this already gone to trial? Is he already guilty? Does the fact that something doesn't get a hit in recent news not make it notable? --Smashville^BONK! 20:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep this doesn't look like a news article at all. News articles are written in the now, referring to recent events, and not revised as events change - rather, new news articles are written when there's new stuff to add, usually trying to quickly summarize all the old articles then giving the news. This article provides encyclopedic (unified, all in one article) coverage of a topic that spanned many news articles, and is still ongoing. We can cover recent events in an encyclopedic style, and doing so is useful. --W.marsh 22:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep While I originally supported deletion in the first AfD, the consensus at the conclusion of the last AfD was for the article to be kept. While the suspect has been captured, he has not been put to trial and there is therefore no "resolution" to this murder. Until all the facts come out at trial and the jury makes a decision, there's really no way to know whether or not this murder will cease to be notable or maintain its notability (and yes, I feel that notability CAN be temporary if the subject's notability was created simply by there being a massive amount of media coverage over a very short period of time, as was the case with this subject). will381796 (talk) 01:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The case is unresolved (before the courts). The "secret other life" of the deceased means it is more than just another murder. WWGB (talk) 01:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Secret other life? There are PLENTY of nude internet models out there, many of which I'm sure keep their profession a secret. To say that she is notable because of this "secret other life" is not a good argument. We have notability tests for pornographic actors which she fails. She is currently notable ONLY because of the massive media coverage of her death (and yes, there are still recent stories on her death). will381796 (talk) 01:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and perhaps Move back to Emily Sander. Received huge media coverage, centered more on the victim than the perpetrator. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 08:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment The subject is only notable as a result of the event (her death). Hence the reason why the article was moved in the first place. will381796 (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BioRig[edit]

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

Failed both ((db-ad)) and ((prod)), but article reads like an advertisement, and significance of the product is in doubt. Poorly sourced: of the references provided, most are links to other Wikipedia articles with no mention of the product. The others seem promotional in nature. Only 131 Google hits. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 15:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete No independent sources establishing the notability of this product, even specialized websites make little or no mention of this product -- Cenarium (talk) 16:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Why it didn't die from ((db-ad)) is beyond me, but at this point, it fails to assert notability. If this article does somehow make it through AfD, please note that the Row2k link is nothing more than a press release from the manufacturer, and the Head of the Ohio website doesn't mention the boat at all. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 08:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google turns up no reliable sources. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 01:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pier Solar[edit]

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

Delete NN unreleased video game Mayalld (talk) 15:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as crystal-balling. The lack of solid facts (coupled with the release date about 9 months away) is probably why it doesn't assert notability. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has sourced solid facts now and an official website that is updated often. The game has been noted on several websites. Zebbe (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTAL, the sources mentioned in the article aren't Reliable or independent of the subject. Secret ^account 01:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, if the edit war continues over this redirect, I would recommend WP:RFPP. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MHE[edit]

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

The article does not satisfy notability requirements, and in fact gives no indication of notability. It also has no sources of any kind.
The article was just part of a brief edit war (see the article's history); I contacted both editors involved and asked them to stop, and as part of this, I'm nominating the article for deletion to get consensus on whether either version belongs in Wikipedia. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 15:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, CSD A7, there's no reason to look for notability if the article makes absolutely no claim to importance. Redfarmer (talk) 15:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've removed the speedy tag since this discussion is still ongoing. It's a little more complicated since there's a content dispute where both people seem to be acting in good faith; I think an AfD discussion would be more likely to prevent further edit warring. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 15:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I reverted my removal of the tag, my mistake. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 15:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7 no claim to notability Mayalld (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article cites no sources, and, searching, I can find no sources documenting this undocumented musical group. The content is unverifiable. But deletion is not required here. Simply revert to the original redirect that pointed to Hereditary Multiple Exostoses. Uncle G (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the history, you'll see that that's exactly what I did. However, it was reverted by the IP, so I decided to get consensus on it here. But yeah, I support redirecting it. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 16:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize it had been a redirect before. In that case, redirect, protect, warn the ip, and speedy close. Redfarmer (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect to Hereditary multiple exostoses. No objection to deleting the NN band article first. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as mentioned above. The redirect that used to be there seems to be bad also, since the TLA should be "HME", not "MHE". --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 08:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The HME/MHE word order is interchangeable according to the article HME article histories and a Google search. Both TLA's are valid. • Gene93k (talk) 11:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 02:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Print Quota Theft[edit]

Print Quota Theft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is unsourced and violates WP:NEO, WP:DICT. Note that article was prodded and the tag was removed. PKT (talk) 15:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete per above Cenarium (talk) 16:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. KurtRaschke (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonsense. Sandstein (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please explain why this is nonsense? I just committed print quota theft yesterday. 130.49.146.24 (talk) 01:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 08:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, too obvious, doesn't tell much that we can't guess from the outset, and I doubt this is expandable. If we had a researched article on "everyday theft" style of things, this might be merge material; as such, this is a bit narrow. (Suggested additional sections: Paper towel and toilet paper theft from corporate restrooms...) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, CSD A7 by TexasAndroid. Non-admin close. Redfarmer (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Evans (news anchor)[edit]

Michael Evans (news anchor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Party appears to be just another news anchor. As near as I can tell, the only notability he has is in being on Eyewitness News, but I don't see how being an anchor unto itself on a show connotes notability, as every Eyewitness News broadcast is relatively local. Am I misreading here, or...? Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - User who created the article is a troll who makes up fake people and creates articles about them. On his previous attempt, he's even taken to trolling the AfD page by inventing non-existent users and posting "comments" from them requesting that the article not be deleted. Article meets A7 speedy criteria, as subject is non-notable, and I'd be absolutely astonished if he's even real. Gromlakh (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, CSD A7 by Accounting4Taste. Non-admin closure. Redfarmer (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Rhen Santillan[edit]

John Rhen Santillan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Complete OR--in fact, the author admits it is OR at the bottom of the page after crediting the essay-like article to someone else at the top and naming the article after himself. I'm suspecting possible Copyvio but I can't locate anything on the school's web site so I'm bringing it here as OR. Redfarmer (talk) 15:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Author admits to OR.Metal Head (talk) 16:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Just recreation of deleted article.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's it a recreation of? Someone tried to speedy it as G1 and I knew it would be denied on that basis but they put on the talk page that it's a recreation. I couldn't find any AfD discussion for this article or a similar one when I looked. Redfarmer (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look here.[10]Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 17:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok. Speedied before. At least this way, if the result is delete, we can use CSD G4 in the future. Redfarmer (talk) 17:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. KurtRaschke (talk) 20:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't say it better than the nom. Goochelaar (talk) 00:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 an yet to be determined article, if you think you found a proper article for redirection, please boldly do so. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Urban magic[edit]

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

Complete OR. I'm finding plenty of Ghits for the term, but all in relation to paganism, not books. Seems like the editor is trying to coin their own phrase. Redfarmer (talk) 15:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm in agreement, this sounds like something that the author made up one day to put a name to such novels. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While one could make the argument that the few novels mentioned have a similarity of setting and genre, that's a far cry from it being a recognized subgenre of fantasy. It seems that the best definition that's been added so far is, "Like fantasy, but urban and with magic". Also, the article namechecks urban fiction as part of an attempt to assign relevance to itself; unfortunately, urban fiction has little to do with a geographical setting and a lot to do with the class and ethnicity of the characters (which aren't relevant to any of the Gaiman books, at least). I agree that the author of the article is trying to cobble together a term; just because no overarching name exists for the works mentioned doesn't mean its Wikipedia's job to coin one, though. Ig8887 (talk) 15:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Contemporary fantasy, the established term. Urban fantasy is listed as a subgenre and would be a more exact redirection target, but I have lingering doubts about the WP:OR/WP:NEO state of the latter. Serpent's Choice (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to either Contemporary fantasy or Urban fantasy, with a slight preference for the latter. I agree with the doubts of Serpent's Choice's about UF, but this would be a good opportunity to clean up and source that article. Goochelaar (talk) 00:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I agree that Contemporary fantasy or Urban fantasy would be appropriate. I read a lot of these books, but have never heard this particular term applied by any bookstore or publisher. Slavlin (talk) 03:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm uncomfortable with redirection, especially if this is WP:OR or WP:HOAX. If the creator created this term themselves one day, it doesn't deserve a redirect. I would be able to WP:AGF more if I hadn't already seen other articles by this editor in WP:AfD and WP:SPEEDY. Redfarmer (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks! Redfarmer (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given the nominator's GHit research, I've left a note on Wikipedia:WikiProject Neopaganism to see if any of them have any input on a more appropriate redirect target, or even a more appropriate article -- RoninBK _{T C} 00:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. It's a very brief, unsourced bit of fluff defining someone's pet name for one author's books (two authors are listed but I have strong suspicions the other was added to make it seem legitimate). Also, redirects are cheap - it's hardly an innovative name, and a lot of people might come up with it in school one day, so we may as well point them in the right direction. Kuronue | Talk 02:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. DS (talk) 15:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unicorn special time with donna and joel[edit]

Another non-notable independent movie with no Ghits, no mention on IMDB, and nothing to suggest it's notable at all. Completely fails all criteria for WP:FILM. Redfarmer (talk) 14:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to be a hoax. --EndlessDan 14:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - certainly fails WP:NF, and is very probably a WP:HOAX as well. Mayalld (talk) 14:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. I checked Youtube, home of such so-called famous videos, and it's not even there. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 author blanking. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fishburn United Methodist Church[edit]

Fishburn United Methodist Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable church. Mr Senseless (talk) 14:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, its a copyvio of this Mr Senseless (talk) 14:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Media in the City of Thuringowa[edit]

Media in the City of Thuringowa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Basically, WP:NOT#Directory. I see a really bad precedent when we start having articles like this on a single local government area. Also, with the exception of one, none of the publications and media outlets listed are exclusive to the City of Thuringowa. The LGA is only part of the catchment of the listed newspapers and TV and radio stations which broadcast to a much wider area. A casual reader may be misled into thinking Thuringowa is much bigger than it actually is.
Another article, Media in Townsville exists, which is possibly the main (bad) rationale for a keep. (I'm guessing that the creation of this article was slightly pointy following a dispute between two editors which has since moved on). Regardless, Media in Townsville would be better renamed to Media in North Queensland and I have started a discussion on the talk page there, but that is a slightly separate issue. —Moondyne 14:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ——Moondyne 14:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails general notability, no reliables to back it up. I think that the articles information is well contained in Media in Townsville. Twenty Years 17:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom - if we had one for every LGA we'd have a serious problem. Orderinchaos 17:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Covered in Media in Townsville. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Media in Townsville. All those media outlets are aparantly also distributed in Townsville and the Thuringowa LGA is being merged with the Townsville LGA so Media in Townsville more than does the job. --Nick Dowling (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Media in Townsville. Not because the LGA is being merged, which as far as I'm concerned is irrelevant, but because both cities get essentially the same media coverage. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 23:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Keep or Redirect Here we go again yet another page about something in Thuringowa that I some input in and it is up for deletion (just more proof that so called editors has an issues with Thuringowa and/or me) once Thuringowa as a city is merged with Townsville then all this sort of thing can be sorted out as I have said before and I will be moving a lot of the info about Thuringowa over to the Townsville page but it seems that we have this great rush to do it all now, as for it not having general notability, well this would mean that the Media in Townsville page is the same but yet that page is not up for deletion is it...funny that, also I have seen many large cities that are LGA's have this info on the main page or how in a list on it's own page linked back to the main article, just like this page has been set up, If it was to be merged I feel that until March when Thuringowa as a city ends, the Townsville media page needs to be re-named Media in Townsville and Thuringowa or media in Townsville-Thuringowa.Plus if a casual reader is misled into thinking Thuringowa is much bigger than it actually is, so what, they just need to click on a link to the Thuringowa city page and have a read (that what a casual reader does) and that reader will see that Thuringowa has around 63'000 people and this is not grounds for a delete, the same as the Les Tyrell page, 7 people say keep 3 say delete and it gets deleted, that isn't right and i can see the same thing is going to happen here...unfair.

Also when is this Thuringowa deleting going to stop as it is going overboard now and enough is enough. Thuringowacityrep (talk) 00:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Respectfully, what is the differences in media available in Thuringowa and Townsville (apart from the council newsletter)?. If there are significant differences, then I'd say this almost certainly worth having an article, but based on the currently available evidence, that does not seem to be the case. I say this as someone who voted "Keep" on the Les Tyrell article (not knowing it was a copyvio). Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 01:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

reply to Question Fist of all Thanks you for your Keep vote on the Les Tyrell page and it was not a copyvio it was re-written with other info added for the info on the Thuringowa website and other websites that were added as Ref's and it was wrong that it was deleted, but that's not the issue now...yet another Thuringowa page is....you are correct to say that the differences in media available in Thuringowa and Townsville aren't that much but the page was started because the Townsville media page kept having anything Thuringowa removed from it when it was added, (it was going to be a page about the media in both Townsville and Thuringowa) so in order to stop the ongoing BS I started this page and put a clear point at the top of the page about most of Thuringowa's media is Townsville based, just doing the right thing I thought. After March 08 I will have no problem with this page being moved or whatever but until then I can not for the life of me see why it needs to be deleted, and again like I said above, if the Townsville media page gets a name change to Media in Townsville and Thuringowa or media in Townsville-Thuringowa then fine....yet again can anyone tell me what the big hurry is to get rid of Thuringowa articles, because i am sick of putting in hors of my time for nothing.Thuringowacityrep (talk) 05:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the definition of 'Townsville' used in the Wikipedia article on the city is "The urban centre known as Townsville is part of two local government areas, the City of Townsville and the City of Thuringowa". AFAIK, it's common to combine the two entities into a single city, even if that isn't technically completely correct. The reason these articles are being deleted is that they're on topics which don't pass the relevant wikipedia notability guidelines. Wikipedia is not a web host, so if you want to create a super-detailed Thuringowa page you might need to set up your own website. --Nick Dowling (talk) 06:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Comment I'm more than happy for it to be added in with the Townsville media page but not while the page is only for Townsville media, However if you all wait untill after March i will remove the page myself (as i am going to do with a few seeing how the "city" part of Thuringowa will be gone) but it again come's back to...what is the big rush, this page has been fine for the last year and it just seems funny how all of a sudden so many Thuringowa pages need to be deleted (you have to admit it does seem odd) right after an editor got ticked off at me. Thuringowacityrep (talk) 07:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[comments moved to user talk page as they are off-topic for this debate. —Moondyne 07:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)]]][reply]

Delete per nominator. This is essentially a directory of not notable local media services. And other than the council's newsletter, mentioned above, it seems to be a fork of Media in Townsville. Sarah 02:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per others. no strong case for this article's existence. Note: this is not being anti-Thuringowa, just being consistent with elsewhere in Wikipedia. It's a bit like living in Penrith where all the main media is the same as rest of Sydney except a few local radio stations and newspapers. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Virtually no unique content; exists for the sake of it. Rebecca (talk) 01:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Media in Townsville which covers exactly the same information in a detailed manner with the exception of the Thuringowa Council's monthly bulletin. •Florrie•leave a note• 11:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — brighterorange (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ipv16[edit]

Ipv16 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I originally PRODed this and Ipv8 per deletion as WP:CRYSTAL but after a quick search, I am uncertain whether it should be deleted or not. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 14:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating: Ipv8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for the reasons I mentioned above.

1024-bit delete. Wow. Major canse of crystalballery, and the only claim to notability for IPv8 is that it uses an address that is 43 bytes (a prime number, of all things) long and that it was suggested on a mailing list! Um, no! --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete both as OR without the R. Actually Ipv16 can surely be speedied for lack of context. — brighterorange (talk) 17:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good call on Ipv16. So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also got Ipv8 for nocontent - what's there is sort of an idea of how to create an IP address scheme using 43 bits. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 02:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jake mcdowell's halloween[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Jake mcdowell's halloween

Jake mcdowell's halloween (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Suspected WP:HOAX. No Ghits whatsoever. Naturally, IMDB only comes up with the John Carpenter and Rob Zombie versions. Redfarmer (talk) 14:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not convinced that it's a hoax, but the article gives some clues to why it doesn't show up on Google - "Casting was then made using members of the school play" and "JM's Halloween was given massive critical recognition upon its release including articles in the local paper". Non-notable home produced film by the sound of it. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 14:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:HOAX. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a hoax. [11] However, unless someone can find sources more substantial than a short article in the local paper, it's non-notable. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 14:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OK, it's not a hoax, but its still fails WP:N spectacularly. The following line "It was written, directed, edited, and shot by Jake McDowell, a 17 year old from Courtice, Ontario. The film, while not recieving distribution from production companies due to copywright laws, has however recieved much recognition from Durham Region" kills it dead (no distribution? no notable actors? played only once at one theater? created by a NN person? yup, not notable). This is basically a remake of the film by a bunch of kids in Ontario that recieved A SINGLE article in a local newspaper. I found no others anywhere. Doc Strange (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Low-budget, indie films do need to create a buzz, but WP is not the place to do that. I do suggest the kid keep at it, it was obviously good enough to get mentioned in the paper. Padillah (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 02:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whisper (Vanessa Hudgens Album)[edit]

Whisper (Vanessa Hudgens Album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources for name of future album. Official website says that the still-unnamed album will include a song called "Whisper", not that the album will be named "Whisper". Crystal-balling again. Kww (talk) 14:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanessa Hudgens Second Studio Album for same album, different name.--NrDg 16:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. If anyone should be promoting it hard it should be her web site and Myspace page, where I find nothing but passing hints. No prejudice for recreation if this ends up being the name of the album. P.S. You can't have a second debut album. Redfarmer (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as User:Redfarmer said. This one's not ripe yet. P.S. Maybe this is what they call a rebut album! --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 08:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. - eo (talk) 01:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect- Redirect to Vanessa Hudgens Second Studio Album until an official title is announced. - Exclusive_474 02:5, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment. Nothing links to this article right now. Future links can go to correct place.--NrDg 14:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin close. Redfarmer (talk) 18:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three Rock Rovers hockey club[edit]

Three Rock Rovers hockey club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Sports club with no assertion of notability. Does not meet WP:CLUB or WP:ORG, and therefore, probably not notable enough for inclusion here. Solumeiras • ^Talk 13:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It needs work but has merit. "Oldest hockey club" in any nation is notable. Dublin is not some podunk town so they have a big city as a base. They have a mention in The Irish Times. A Google poll comes back with a number of hits (55,000) regarding them and the matches they've had. I think it needs clean-up (and a mention that it's Field Hockey not Ice Hockey) and sourcing. Padillah (talk) 15:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close my mistake for not checking the page properly. --Solumeiras (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Neıl ☎ 11:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muntinlupa Little League[edit]

Muntinlupa Little League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Unremarkable group. Hu12 (talk) 13:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hu12... I just wanted to mention that I was surprised by the sudden deletion. Since the initial notices from Wikipedia about concerns on the article we have been trying to find ways to improve. I thought that we had made some improvements. We were planning further additions to answer concerns. I was surprised by the sudden deletion. It would have been reasonable to have a couple of days warning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.90.158 (talk) 14:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Debates on Articles for Deletion are generally scheduled for 5 days or longer. This is :intended both to provide time for multiple editors to review and discuss the article, and also for those editors who are so inclined to address concerns with the article to do so. Hu12 indicates that he/she believes the subject of the article to be non-notable. Are there sources or websites which might prove otherwise? If there are, please mention them here or add them to the article. It's possible that the little league is indeed notable, and that's fine - but, unless that can be shown here, it can't be verified, and the article may be deleted. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ultraexactzz is correct Pepemunoz44/222.127.90.158. Please expand the statement "We were planning further additions...'--Hu12 (talk) 15:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ultraexactzz...
Thank you very much for your comments. I had seen the earlier concerns raised about my article. I am new to Wikipedia and have been struggling a bit with how it works. I have been studying carefully and hard how to improve the article so that it would meet Wikipedia standards. Today I had made several edits which I hoped would address some of these concerns. I was surprised to see that right in the middle of my latest edit the article was deleted. I think it would have been helpful to have a specific warning before deletion. I appreciate your comments and I will certainly use this in my future effort. Thank you. pepemunoz44

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepemunoz44 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Weak Keep. It lacks valid resources except for its Main Website. Also, I can't find ANY news report about this tournament except for this cached page from Manila Standard Today. Starczamora (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I think it fails notability for a sports team. There's not really any references for the article. Now if they got farther in the Little League World Series, then I think they could be notable, but right now i say delete. Hatmatbbat10,a proud Wikipedian (Talk) 22:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The different Little Leagues (LL) in the 2007 Little League World Series don't have articles, why should this be any different? --Howard the Duck 10:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Neıl ☎ 11:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Password Repository[edit]

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

Patent advertising, written as such. Should probably have been speedily deleted on creation but as the article is getting on for 3 years old this seems inappropriate now. Has been tagged as needing citations since 2006 but none have been added. Ros0709 (talk) 13:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It also appears to be a copy violation of pomola.com as there is some identical phrasing. Ros0709 (talk) 13:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed that. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; it no longer reads like an ad to me. I've also spotted there is a Category:Password_managers so there is probably no justification for deleting on advertising grounds. I guess the article stands or falls on notability now (per comment below). Ros0709 (talk) 14:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see this meeting any of the speedy criteria (though I have no specific objection to the speedy deletion of an older article), but it doesn't meet notability guidelines. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3 years ago, we didn't have that speedy deletion criterion. Uncle G (talk) 13:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What speedy deletion criterion? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant advertising, the one that the nominator is talking about. Uncle G (talk) 13:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How come this friday afternoon feels like a monday morning? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It has been here for almost two years and there have been 10 edits (4 of which were a SmackBOT fix and the AfD itself). This is obviously not notable. Padillah (talk) 19:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Morgan Spurlock - already done. Neıl ☎ 11:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Jamieson[edit]

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

Creating page for 77.96.240.178, who wishes to nominate the page for deletion. Originally a speedy deletion, the speedy was declined as there are actually assertions of importance in the article and the article has references. The original speedy deletion tag said "She isn't famous enough. I cannot even find her book for sale. Simply being married to Morgan Spurlock should not warrant an article on Wikipedia". I am only opening the AFD for an IP address who does not have page creation privileges, and thus I am officially neutral. Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - From looking at the page, she doesn't meet any notability requirements. Publishing a small, unknown cookbook certainly wouldn't change that.Gwynand (talk) 14:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment the book can be found for sale here; it's also on google books. I'd tend to think she's pretty notable for a vegan chef - how many of them have credits in hit documentaries? --Paularblaster (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and she has credits in some episodes of 30 Days, not mentioned in the article or on imdb, but listed on amazon's "video download" facility. Even so, my opinion leans to "merge and redirect". --Paularblaster (talk) 23:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One cookbook without reviews is not notability. The combination of being a vegetarian chef and having an unstated role in a documentary has no intrinsic significance. DGG (talk) 12:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just about to turn this into a redirect (which as I understand it doesn't require AfD?). All the relevant information is already at Morgan Spurlock. --Paularblaster (talk) 13:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Morgan Spurlock. In total, she was in Super Size Me for under ten minutes. She did appear more in the first episode of 30 Days, but otherwise all the notable info in in the Morgan Spurlock article Doc Strange (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is in place: just needs an admin to close this and remove the afd. --Paularblaster (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

2007-08 Alexandria Glens season[edit]

The result was I'm closing this early as a clear delete; a PROD would have been more appropriate, IMHO, but this is kinda even faster. Maxim_(talk) 23:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2007-08 Alexandria Glens season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Excessive detail for a Junior B level team Wikipedia is not a collection of statistics JD554 (talk) 12:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. —JD554 (talk) 12:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. DMighton (talk) 13:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This level of detail might be better served on the ice hockey wikia. Reso lute 14:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminant collection of information. And as Resolute said there are better places for this info. -Djsasso (talk) 15:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A clear consensus for deletion as a non-notable neologism. The final version was also copyvio from here. TerriersFan (talk) 02:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hierarchical Customer Management[edit]

PROD was removed with no improvement to the article. There are no reliable sources to establish any notability of this process. A Google search with this article title in quotes turns up only 9 results of which the first is this article. Of the remainder, only two appear to about the concept written about here. One is simply a navigation link that leads to one of the prior two results. And the remainder aren't about this. In fact they are about a different concept of hierarchical customer management. Whpq (talk) 12:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is another that I came across on Proposed Deletion patrol and left to be deleted because I agreed that it was unverifiable. I couldn't find it documented by reliable sources anywhere. This appears to in fact be an advertisement masquerading as an article. The clues to this are the very first sentence of the first revision of the article, q.v., this edit mentioning a company, and this self-promotional article by the CEO of that company, also written in January 2008 as this article was. The self-promotion claims that the company is "a leading hierarchical-customer-management (HCM) solution". But the reality appears to be that it's the only such "solution", because HCM is a thing that the company itself invented, and then came to Wikipedia to write original promotional articles about. Wikipedia is not a self-submission advertising billboard. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 13:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I placed a CSD tag on this article when it was first created on January 14, 2008 because it was pure advertisement for a company. The creator of the article removed the CSD tag and substantially shortened the article to a relatively reasonable article that doesn't read so much like pure advertisement... the only thing missing now is notability of this company and so I say delete per WP:CORP and WP:NN. ALLSTARecho 14:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, strongly, per above. Yet another article about a dubious neologism attempting to promote a rather obvious three letter acronym purporting to be a "new" business data management practice and making grandiose claims about its potential worth. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I placed Advert, Wikify and Unref tags on it when it was originally posted. It looked like a candidate for SD:Advertising, but I gave it the benefit of the doubt and just placed the 'Advertising' tag on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bagheera (talk • contribs) 16:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as self-promoting neologism. Majoreditor (talk) 04:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did some checking also and agree with the comments above as to lack of references and notability, and that it's advertising (although less so now), as well as WP:COI. — Becksguy (talk) 07:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article was just turned back into an advertisement piece by an IP. I removed the junk. Just an FYI. ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 09:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The material added was a copy-paste from http://www.scotsmanguide.com/default.asp?ID=2655 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whpq (talk • contribs) 09:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret ^account 01:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cooliris[edit]

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

There is no indication of the importance or significance of this company. The sources cited do not, or barely meet WP:RS, and appear to be little more than mentions or fluff pieces. Consequently there appears to be no valid assertion of notability. In fact, looking at the original talk page, it appears the page was written by one of the company founders, a big no-no the last time I checked. It smacks of advertising. It may have a great product, but wikipedia is not an index of every startup company that has ever been. Eric4200 (talk) 11:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not sure about notability, but it looks like it is leaning against notable. The article now reads as advertising and seems to assume importance without proving it.Gwynand (talk) 14:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As it stands there are certainly issues. However, no prohibition exist against cleaning up the article. Give it a chance, if not corrected it can be renominated.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was written by a cofounder of the company in February 2007, little to nothing has been improved on it since then. Best as I can tell from a good faith search, the company has been fairly stagnant in recent months. This article doesn't need to be cleaned up, it needs to be either excised or redone from scratch based on independent reliable sources. Eric4200 (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Let's get the puff piece off Wikipedia and not leave it lying around waiting in vain for someone somewhere to set it straight. Madman (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A full signed strongly positive review in MacWeek is sufficient sourcing for notability. We dont delete for COI, just look carefully. DGG (talk) 12:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly is a 100 word blurb on a website, mentioning a beta version for a product (from 2 years ago) sufficient sourcing for notability? And BTW, I never proposed COI as the reason fro deletion. However a self-written bio on your own company is a glaring example of COI, which is generally a big no no on wikipedia. In fact WP:COI describes COI edits as strongly discouraged, and worthy of users being banned if they are disruptive. COI articles are most definitely worthy of having a strong spotlight shined on them, and this case such an examination shows an unworthy article. Eric4200 (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think that this company yet rises to WP:CORP. MacWeek is not sufficient sourcing for notability because they routinely profile startups they believe have promise. It's very much akin to asserting notability for a book when it's reviewed in a comprendium review listing. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Though this company may produce niche products, by our notability rules they seem to have made it. If you go to the press coverage link on the company's site you'll be able to click through to the actual comments on major review sites, including Macworld. Versiontracker.com, which only reviews the Mac version, has some commentary from users (which we can't use since not reliable), and the number of downloads logged through Versiontracker isn't large. Cooliris does appear to have enough sources to deserve an article, though not all sources have yet been added. One web site pointed out that they don't yet have a business model, and all their software is free so far. EdJohnston (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One critical problem with that argument, with the exception of an online blurb on Macworld (*barely* a reliable source), none of the other coverage meets the requirements of WP:RS.Eric4200 (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - neutral. Normally I would say "delete - spam for non-notable product". But the nominator's contribution history indicates an account with the single purpose of deleting the article. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So? What does my status as an editor have to do with nominating a bad article for deletion? I'm assuming that most people here think for themselves, and I would certainly hope a nominating editor's lack of editing history wouldn't prevent someone from evaluating something on it's own merits. Perhaps you're ignoring a central tenant of Wikipedia, assume good faith? Eric4200 (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact your fluency in wikispeak leads me to suspect that you are a sockpuppet which makes me very suspicious of your motives. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I tried out this startup's 2 offerings last year, and they're actually not too bad, though very alpha/beta quality. If they keep at it, I could see them being notable enough for their own page in the future, but I don't seem them at that point yet. They've gotten some positive reviews, but they all appear to be short and on a few blogs and ezines. If someone can find some real press, please by all means add it. Newtman (talk) 19:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, since there is a lack of explanation for deletion on the nominator's part as well as the subject has been properly sourced. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Makkal Manadu Katchi[edit]

Makkal Manadu Katchi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 15:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete utterly NN Mayalld (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which criterion does this article meet? cab (talk) 04:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are more references to the article now. Some of those are from credible sources like Election Commission of India, Leading News Media - The Hindu and Tamil Nadu Government Gazette. Thus it satisfies the notability factor.--Mmkatchi (talk) 14:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of political parties in India#M. Verifiable, as they have a short article about them in a Chennai newspaper [12] as well as being listed by the national elections commission. [13] I don't think they get any Ghits in Tamil (how do you spell the middle word, is it மக்கள் மனது கட்சி?), but I don't actually speak the language outside of "Hello" and "I love you". cab (talk) 04:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi cab, It has to be மக்கள் மாநாடு கட்சி in tamil. Phonetically it should have been Makkal Maanaadu Katchi. There are more references added to the article from more sources.--Mmkatchi (talk) 14:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)— Mmkatchi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
This might meet WP:N, but I have to ask, are you connected to this party in some way, as your username implies? If so, you should probably avoid editing the article any more, as per the policy on conflicts of interests, though we welcome your efforts if you can provide more newpaper sources about the party, and let other editors do the actual writing of this article. Thanks, cab (talk) 08:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 04:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keepThis article deserves to be kept as it complies with the notability factor.There are references to Election commission of India,The Hindu and the Tamilnadu Government Gazette.Therefore, keep the article.--Orathanadu (talk) 12:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC) — Orathanadu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

keep This entity seems quite notable in Tamilnadu and vernacular newspapers have carried number of verifiable articles on this articles other than the English daily The Hindu.Further,it is a registered political party with the Election Commission of India.--Villiwakkam (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC) — Villiwakkam (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment I hope that the two new participants in the debate, who have both just made their first edit to Wikipedia, would take the time out to read our policies on:
things you should not do if you are using multiple user accounts, and

our rules about recruiting new users solely for the purpose of commenting on ongoing debates.

If these rules do not describe your situation, please carry on editing. cab (talk) 08:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two articles from the major national newspaper are sufficient for notability of a new political partyDGG (talk) 13:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The party has its own website and the article has enough content and sources to be considered notable. Anyway, I feel that the neutrality aspect of the article must be looked into. -Ravichandar 09:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keepThe sources mentioned in tha article are verifiable. The article seems to be neutral--Youyes (talk) 11:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, copyvio. Pegasus «C¦T» 08:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BioinfoGRID[edit]

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

Promotional tone, unsourced, and very likely a copyright violation. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 09:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listed as copyvio from [14]. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 10:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gnan garra 11:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duelist Pack - Jaden Yuki[edit]

Duelist Pack - Jaden Yuki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Also adding Duelist Pack - Chazz Princeton • Duelist Pack - Jaden Yuki 2 • Duelist Pack - Zane Truesdale • Duelist Pack - Aster Phoenix • Duelist Pack - Jaden Yuki 3 and Duelist Pack - Jesse Andersen Same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Revelation 1, they all fail WP:N Delete all-- Secret ^account 00:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* WikiProject Yu-Gi-Oh! has been notified of this debate. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yu-Gi-Oh! Wikia already has all this, and it desn't belong here. JuJube (talk) 08:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all fancruft 70.55.89.222 (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Transhumanist (talk) 09:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Scrutton[edit]

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

First murder victim of the Unabomber, but otherwise non-notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Unabomber#Bombings --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 17:26, 10 January 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) 09:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per NickPenguin's suggestion. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, though the correct target is actually Theodore Kaczynski#Bombings Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 19:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 22:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Ultimate Fling[edit]

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

Tagged for speedy delete and contested. This is about a single released by the notable band Poets of the Fall. Perhaps a merge is required but I make no absolute recommendation to reviewing editors. --VS ^talk 09:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded the content of the article and added references. I also updated the band's Wikipedia-entry. I will further expand both articles when new valid information about TUF has been released. I also added the "future single" tag. Nuhr (talk) 22:20, 10 January 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) 09:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't think WP:CRYSTAL applies here; however, this page should be watched to see if it improves when the single comes out. Side note: the lyrics should be removed. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They seem to be a big band in Finland; doubtless there'll be plenty of sources when it's been released. I removed the lyrics. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 19:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Poets of the Fall. Until the album has been released (and, for that matter, titled!), it's unclear whether this song will become notable enough to merit its own article or should simply be part of the album's article per WP:MUSIC. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 08:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article can be renamed in the unlikely event that the single is named differently to the song. HJV (talk) 04:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was The Result was WP:SNOW delete as WP:HOAX. Keeper | 76 16:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

John Forbes (actor)[edit]

John Forbes (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Hoax. Several things about this article seem to match an actual actor/doctor named "John Forbs" who is in grey's anatomy (same as the name of the author of the article.). Every other aspect of the article seem to be a complete fabrication. The article claims his son is an actor yet brought back no relevant Ghits. Every single movie that is not wikilinked is also fabricated. Trusilver (talk) 07:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Article is pure nonsense and completely fake. No reference citations support claim that this person even exists, article mentions fake movies he supposedly starred in, real movies that are linked show no proof of him appearing in them, and he has no entry in IMDB. Total hoax. Gromlakh (talk) 07:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Cnwb (talk) 07:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no usable encyclopaedic content. John Forbs wsa speedy deleted a month ago (related?). Guest9999 (talk) 09:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination. Gwynand (talk) 14:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no entry in imdb or a mention in the imdb entries for any of the shows or films that he's supposedly in. I think this is a hoax Doc Strange (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete. Give the creator a chance to fix his article. Also, it is believed that John Forbs was a mistaken spelling of the person's name. Forbes with an e is the correct way to spell the name, as I know John Forbes and his wife Evelyn, not Gena. Reallifematters (talk) 09:57, 18 January 2008 — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Forbs (talk • contribs)

DO NOT DELETE MY ARTICLE. I admit that this seems too good to be true, but I assure you that I am finding evidence to claim some of the information about Dr. Forbes' life and career. John Forbs is my name, his is spelled with an e, not without. That is why I found it necessary to create this page about the actor. Rest assured that if I cannot find any proof out there that the said actor does not exist, I will help you to delete this article as I take this very, very Seriously. But in the meantime, Do not delete this page. The references are piling up on John Forbes, M.D. John Forbs (talk) 10:01 18 January 2008

Comment - It appears that this is a joke at this point. What are you talking about? Show evidence somewhere, now, that he has appeared in anything that the page purports he has.Gwynand (talk) 15:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - John, trying to pad the vote with other votes for users that don't exist not only won't help your case, but makes you look foolish. Don't deny you did this, it's in the history. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. I'm in agreement with the other !votes here, this is a hoax. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 poorly sourced list with BLP issues, keeps doesn't have much in policy based reasoning Secret ^account 01:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu-Muslim marriages[edit]

Hindu-Muslim marriages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article is not much more than a list of celebrity marriage with lots of red links. The few paragraphs appear to be original research. At best, material could be merged into other related articles. Delete TheRingess (talk) 06:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —TheRingess (talk) 06:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Says it raises complex issues, then fails to discuss any of them. Could be the germ of an article, say Interfaith marriage in India, but would need much better sourcing. --Dhartung | Talk 06:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please Keep: Hindu-Muslim marriages are a very controversial subject with social, religious and legal implications. They have caused many riots and disturbances. The red links are apparantly caused by some editors added names of relatively non-famous individuals. It is not intended to be a list of minor stars involved in such marriages. More discussions need to be added to the article. I hope to do some of that some time, but asistance from other wikipedia editors is invited.--Vikramsingh (talk) 06:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a suggestion, I think this could be covered under a more general article topic as Hindu-Muslim weddings are not the only controversial inter-faith marraige. If the H.-M. section expands sufficiently, it could then be spun off into a separate article. The "Religious aspects of marriage" sub-topic is sadly lacking in this regard, and I do agree it is an important topic.—RJH (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on article as it now stands. The article is mostly unsourced. Furthermore, it is unclear or ambiguous on certain key points: for example, in Pakistan, it says that "[a] Muslim man can marry a non-Muslim woman provided she converts to Islam." What about a Muslim woman who wants to marry an originally non-Muslim man who has converted to Islam? And if both parties are Muslim as of the wedding day, is that still considered a Hindu-Muslim marriage? It would be better if important points such as these were dealt with rather than compiling a list of alleged Hindu-Muslim couples. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejedice While the article is currently just a long list of famous Hindu_Muslim marriages that can be deleted, I'm sure that if someone came back sometime and wrote a long article about Hindu-Muslim marriages and their history, it'd be great.--Phoenix -wiki 20:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article is in a very poor shape, but should be improved. That would be more constructive since the subject is notable and some sources have been already provided.Biophys (talk) 05:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Even as a list, the people are notable -- some very notable -- with WP articles, where the documentation can be found. DGG (talk) 13:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --Java7837 (talk) 15:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Yahel Guhan 06:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Yahel Guhan 06:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-- From Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Lists of people, it is evident that the individuals mentioned do not satisfy one main criteria:Inter-faith marriages are not the reason for their claim to fame. Besides, there are plenty of religions in existence. What is the use of having pages for Hindu-Muslim marriages, Hindu-Christian marriages, Muslim-Christian marriages and for all possible permutations and combinations of the kind. Does it serve any academic purpose or is it even notable -Ravichandar 09:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Bill[edit]

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

There are important, noteworthy officials associated with the British royal family. I don't think a nanny is one of them. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Prince John of the United Kingdom. Worth a little more mention there, as her relationship with him (as teacher/surrogate mother) comes up in many royal biographies, and was dramatized in the telefilm The Lost Prince. --Dhartung | Talk 06:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Above - not notable for own article although should be merged with Prince John of the United Kingdom. Tiddly-Tom 07:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this should be further sourcable from the many royal bios, and the like, Her character appears in the film [[The Lost Prince[[ where she is played by Gina McKee. DGG (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above. If kept I will rewrite and expand the article (based on biographies of royal contemporaries–I doubt she has a biography of her own). PeterSymonds | talk 21:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 02:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zombies Ate My Neighbors (2)[edit]

Zombies Ate My Neighbors (2) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Independent film that does not meet terms of WP:N. Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This new release isn't even on IMDB. If it was, that wouldn't be grounds for inclusion, but since it isn't I think it shows lack of notability. -FrankTobia (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Cnwb (talk) 07:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 05:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -RiverHockey (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 22:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CBALL. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 08:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 02:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Michael Lindner[edit]

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

This actor's claim to notability is that he shared in "An Award" as a part of an ensemble in a kids movie, no sources for said unnamed award found. Combined with a perusal of his IMDB page, I do not believe that this provides sufficient notability, as A) his award was not for him directly B) there's no indication it was a major award ~~C) there's no indication they actually won the award~~ and D) it's the only work he's done that would even be borderline for inclusion. CastAStone /^/(talk) 14:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a Young Actors Award, and I found a mention on the imdb page for the movie. It doesn't change my opinion, but I felt I needed to clarify.--CastAStone /^/(talk) 14:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 05:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 22:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to meet WP:BIO (Entertainers). --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 08:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO failure. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 22:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 03:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Instigators[edit]

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

Limited release demo album with no claim of meeting WP:Notability or WP:MUSIC in article. Contested prod. Fabrictramp (talk) 14:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to main band article. --neonwhite user page talk 20:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is fine. If not, Delete. Madman (talk) 18:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 05:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Atrocity's band page. Not notable enough for its own entry, I really doubt any of their releases merit an entry. Before people accuse me of targeting metal again, remember I grew up on metal (I admit it, among other genres) and I had this demo.... Definitely delete.-RiverHockey (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 22:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 02:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Vandergriff[edit]

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

No claim in article of meeting WP:BIO. First half-dozen pages of non-wiki ghits aren't showing notability. Contested prod. Fabrictramp (talk) 14:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable. Madman (talk) 18:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 05:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to meet WP:BIO (in particular, the "Creative Professionals" subcategory). --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 08:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A rising music performer as evidenced by her semi-final placings. However, the consensus is that she does not presently meet WP:MUSIC. TerriersFan (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia Berntson[edit]

This article seems to have been prodded and deprodded several times, the last of which suggested taking the article to AFD, so here it is. Searching extensively I can't find any reliable sources about this person that indicate notability other than coming seventh in Melodifestivalen, which I don't think by itself makes her notable enough to be kept per WP:BLP1E. PirateMink 14:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per PirateMink. Only finished seventh in a Melodifestivalen semifinal, and searching hasn't brought up any albums or singles before or since. Chwech 18:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. SingCal (talk) 07:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 05:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment she would seem to be unique in having been a semi-finalist in both the Swedish Melodifestivalen and its Greek equivalent the Thessaloniki Song Festival. A fact that has also been reported in Dutch (alongside sources in English, Swedish and Greek). --Paularblaster (talk) 00:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to pretty obviously fail WP:MUSIC. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 07:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, I can't merge the text per WP:NPOV and the track listing is so generic it doesn't require article history to be in existance. Daniel (talk) 03:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stand by Me (album)[edit]

Stand by Me (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No claims of notability, except that artist is son of Ray Brown (musician) and Ella Fitzgerald, and cites some accolades in not very reliable sources. Creator likely has COI as they have not edited anything unrelated to Ray Brown, Jr.. Reads like an ad. LeSnail (talk) 15:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I quite concur. The same might apply to his biography. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 05:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough, no secondary sources on the Internet Cenarium (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable. Madman (talk) 18:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 22:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Ray Brown, Jr. per WP:MUSIC. Note that while the article includes more than just a track listing, most of the remaining text fails WP:NPOV. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 07:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 03:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slow Down For Love[edit]

Slow Down For Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No claims of notability, except that artist is son of Ray Brown (musician) and Ella Fitzgerald. Creator likely has COI as they have not edited anything unrelated to Ray Brown, Jr.. No references. Very little information. LeSnail (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur, as per other albums. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 16:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 05:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough, no secondary sources on the Internet Cenarium (talk) 16:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 22:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Ray Brown, Jr. per WP:MUSIC. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 07:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 03:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Committed From The Heart[edit]

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

No claims of notability, except that artist is son of Ray Brown (musician) and Ella Fitzgerald. Creator likely has COI as they have not edited anything unrelated to Ray Brown, Jr.. No references. Very little information. LeSnail (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur, as per other albums. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 05:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough, no secondary sources on the Internet Cenarium (talk) 16:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 22:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Ray Brown, Jr. per WP:MUSIC since article only includes track listing. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 07:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret ^account 01:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cosmic Encounter powers[edit]

List of Cosmic Encounter powers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is simply a list of powers in a game and does not appear to be appropriate to Wikipedia. It seems to be more of a game guide item. Slavlin (talk) 05:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#GUIDE. THe article was created because tidying up the Cosmic Encounter article annoyed a blogger who insisted we keep the information, and I've only haven't AFDed it myself because I wanted to avoid aggravating them.. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into Cosmic Encounter article. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is there really any content there worth saving that isn't already in the summary in Cosmic Encounter? Remember, wikipedia is not a game guide. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It seems that your removal of this material from the main article did not have consensus support, as its talk page indicates. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rather, I'd say that TheDukester didn't care about the guidelines (especially WP:CIVIL). The guidelines say that WP isn't for game guides, and they do have consensus support. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The game guide guideline is not applicable as this list of powers is not a "how-to" or recap of the rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonel Warden (talk • contribs) 18:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was a good game guide. It lists the various powers in various editions of the game. Just because it's only a guide to one part of those games, it doesn't mean it isn't a game guide. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The inclusion of noting which of the game's many versions each power appeared in elevates this above game guide or indiscriminate list; it actually has value for people looking for Cosmic Encounter information that reading the game rules can't provide. The length keeps merging from being entirely satisfactory, as that will bloat the original article. As far as it not being edited since its split from the main article, I note that there are absolutely no links from the Cosmic Encounter article to this one; is there any wonder it withered after being separated? Ig8887 (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there's one in the middle of the Gameplay section. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK. I see it now. Well, its placement is still pretty poor and easily overlooked. At any rate, that doesn't change my opinion that the article has merit on its own. Ig8887 (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#GUIDE, maybe something can be add in the article Cosmic Encounter about the most important powers (but not in a list, i e : no merging) -- Cenarium (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's unlikely to be any way of determining which powers are "most important" that isn't Original Research. The game values them all equally, making any assertion of importance tough to back up.Ig8887 (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, why some powers are more detailed than others ? In the event of deletion, it won't be possible to list all these powers in the Cosmic Encounter article so if we follow what you say, no examples of powers can be given in this article, it's : all or none. But giving examples is necessary to an encyclopedia under some circumstances, is it necessary here ? -- Cenarium (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact they are already examples of powers in the article, so it's settled. -- Cenarium (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An example is not the same thing as "most important". The powers that currently have additional information are more or less at random, based on what individual editors decided to add. If this article gets deleted, then yes, a few examples should be added back into the main article, but there should not be any assertion that those examples are the "most important" powers, because they aren't. Ig8887 (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable. Madman (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Keep. Frankly, only because I find the list interesting and useful (I didn't know about all of the editions or that the on-line game added some stuff.) Not a good policy reason (ILIKEIT), but I found it interesting and I suspect others would too. Needs sourcing badly and I'd be somewhat surprised if anyone could find such sources. If someone could, I'd go all the way to "weak keep" :-) Hobit (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, if this does get deleted, would the closing admin mind moving it to my user space? I'd like to keep the info... Thanks! Hobit (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can save the page (in HTML, or copy it) or retrieve the information on an official site. -- Cenarium (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but I'd like the edit history and stuff too if possible. Hobit (talk) 00:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not a webhost. Slavlin (talk) 03:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, but fix and transwiki might work. I'm not sure yet... Hobit (talk) 04:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Articles like these are why God invented Wikia. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 07:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 02:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dominick Calabria[edit]

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

Establishes no notability, cites no sources Stlemur (talk) 04:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:BIO. I can't find any references to his (unspecified) "numerous awards and accolades". Clarityfiend (talk) 05:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources on google establishing the notability -- Cenarium (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless expanded to show the notability. The awards would of course do it, if they are important ones. DGG (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, better policy-based arguments. Daniel (talk) 03:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great Minds Think Alike[edit]

Great Minds Think Alike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Failure of WP:RS and WP:NOTE. Assertion of notability supported exclusively by passing mentions in blogs, forum postings and an open wiki. The creation of a single purpose account, 65.78.26.119, who removed recent prod without comment. Victoriagirl (talk) 04:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No attribution of the poem's notability to independent and credible sources. --Dhartung | Talk 06:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 22:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. A poem this clearly related to such a well known saying deserves a place in Wikipedia. In this electronic day and age, that the poem was self-published has no bearing. A wide readership is indicated by the poem's high placement in Google's search results. As for its notability, the online references, in my opinion, are independent and credible. Several people from far-flung backgrounds have gone to the trouble of quoting or mentioning the poem. Word of mouth has always been a potent, if not the most potent, force in culture.Pmenard (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Had the saying "great minds think alike" had coined by William Michaelian, a case might be made for notability. However, the title is derived from an expression in common usage. As the issue of ghits has been raised I note that "Great Minds Think Alike" + "William Michaelian" garners a total of 14 unique hits. This is hardly a "high placement". Mention of the poem is found on blogspot, Yahoo 360, myspace, and similar sites. Victoriagirl (talk) 04:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 keep). For more details, see: AfD talk page. JERRY ^talk _contribs 14:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hajj Amin Elahi[edit]

Hajj Amin Elahi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article was successfully deleted twice before: [15] so ~~it may be an option to speedy delete per G4, and~~ the closing admin might also want to salt it.No notability has been established: being a musician and composer of musical modes is not by itself notable: Wikipedia:Notability (music). The only references given are a paid obituary notice and a book written about the subject’s father: notability is not inherited. Fails WP:BIO and WP:N for these reasons. Teleomatic (talk) 04:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE The nominator has not been with WP very long and is misstating policy; the prior deletions were a speedy and for copyright violation, hardly a reason to justify deletion of the current article. This statement is prejudicial.--Octavian history (talk) 06:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Problematic References

After having found that the only reliable reference that this article cited does not support the claims made in the article (see my reply to Kevin Murray below), I thought it prudent to check the additional reference that author of the article added after I brought up this fact. I was not entirely surprised to find out that The Yaresan by M. Reza Hamzeh’ee, makes no mention of Hajj Amin Elahi whatsoever. In a short section on pages 160-161 concerning the importance of music in the meditation and mystical dancing of the Yaresan, there are 2 sentences that mention his father’s musicianship, but no reference to any of his children was found anywhere. I added a note to the article’s talk page noting this, and the appropriate notice to the article page as well.

I’m not sure what stake the editor has in the inclusion of this article in Wikipedia, but it's my opinion that the means he or she are using to ensure it (including, as it appears below, using a IPsock to voice an opinion on this page) are entirely inappropriate. Teleomatic (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cant speedy as it was no deleted due to AfD in the past - just speedyed. Subject of article not notable. Tiddly-Tom 07:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP This man was the greatest Kurdish musician in history. There are many article and books in which he is mentioned as one of the greatest masters of the Tanbur, but most of them are in Kurdish. It is very important to keep this article and would be an academic crime to delete it. All obituaries in the New York Times are paid for. Just because a person dies does not mean they get a free obituary. They are all paid for! Even the biggest names in history. This person lived outside the United States and not in New York, but was still in the New York Times. Plus the New York Times is used as a source and citation for the date of his death. This is not a paid add to sell an item, get your facts strait.

Also, just because the entire book is not about him is not a good reason to try to discredit the citation.--Octavian history (talk) 08:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please see my comment below to Kevin Murray about the During book that you cited – I think I have shown that it can be discredited as a source that establishes notability. As for what you said about New York Times obituaries, it simply isn’t true. Celebrities and well known public figures do not have paid obituaries – they are researched and written by respected journalists. The obituaries that appear in the paid death notices section can be written and submitted by anyone, and no fact checking is done. That is why paid obituaries, regardless of where they are published, are not valid as references for an encyclopedia. Teleomatic (talk) 23:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note The book can NOT be discredited. It is a valid book that was published. The New York Times obituaries is valid to establish the date of death. You are wrong about public figures not having to pay. Public figures do not have to pay if an editorial is written up about them, but they absolutely do have to pay if they place a notice in the obituary section. Regardless of the above, a lack of citations isn't a reason for a delete. Importance/Significance has been claimed, which is enough to satisfy WP:CSD#A7.--Octavian history (talk) 03:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's clear that I'm not denying that the book has been published, but it has been discredited as a valid reference for the claims you make in the article you wrote. I don’t think anyone will mind if you cite a paid obituary for the date of someone’s death. The criteria you mention (WP:CSD#A7) is used for speedy deletions of articles, which is not what is happening here. Lack of notability is what is being disputed here, and that needs to be demonstrated with some reliable sources, not just asserted. Teleomatic (talk) 04:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not excited about the flavor of the nomination. The nominator has not been with WP very long and is misstating policy; the prior deletions were a speedy and for copyright violation, hardly a reason to justify deletion of the current article. This statement is prejudicial. The nominator does not clarify how the article fails BIO, as one of the writers of BIO and N, I don't see an obvious failure as we have a significant source. That the primary focus of the source is the father does not mean that there isn't enough info to demonstrate notability of the son. I am impressed by Octavian's assertion that there are many foreign language sources, and assuming good faith this adds to the notability (these sources can be cited to establish notability). The NY Times is meaningless, but the Tanbur Society webpage gives a minor but apparently independent reference (more info on the Society would be compelling). It's a squeaker, but considering the weak nomination and two reasonable sources, I'd like to see us keep and improve the article. --Kevin Murray (talk) 10:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commment: I concede that G4 doesn't apply in this case and have adjusted my nomination accordingly. Since I initiated this AfD, and you justifiable raised the issue of a valid source being given, I took it upon my self to obtain the book by During and search for the relevant citations. What I found were a few sentences in an appendix:

[Ostad Elahi's sister] had several students, among whom Amin Elahi, Ostad's eldest son born in 1920, stood out. He too, practices music as a means of devotion and meditation, and plays the tanbour in a sweet and captivating manner with an inexhaustible inspiration. In addition, he plays the flute (ney) using the circulatory respiration technique... (p.144)

There is also a mention on p. 146 where Ostad Elahi is quoted as describing Haj Amin as a "good tanbour musician", while the younger brother of Haj Amin, who is cited in the book as being the one who inherited the gift of tanbour playing from his father, describes Haj Amin as simply "play[ing] in his own manner." There is no mention of the subject being a "master musician", a "prolific player" or a composer of "many new musical modes", which are the claims originally made in the article that cite this book as the source. The few lines dedicated to the musical ability of the subject in question give no indication that he was a notable musician, given the guidelines of WP:BIO, and Wikipedia:Notability (music). Teleomatic (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tele, I don't see how you can search for references without reading the whole book, page by page and line by line. I'm a little concerned about the intellectual independence of both the writer of the article and the nominator; is there something deeper here? While I applaud dedication, what would motivate an editor to go out and optain an obscure book in order to document an Afd. I think that there is more to the story and controversy smacks of notability. --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not as obscure as you think: [16] especially if you spend a good portion of your day studying in a library that has it. While I admit I didn't read through the whole book, I welcome the writer of the article to point out anything I may have missed. Teleomatic (talk) 01:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note BTW, regardless of the above, a lack of citations isn't a reason for a delete. Importance/Significance has been claimed, which is enough to satisfy WP:CSD#A7.--Octavian history (talk) 03:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain from voting. Comment: The Tanbur Society was deleted (via ((prod))) due to notability concerns. I've also restored the AfD template to the article, as the discussion has not run its course. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 11:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if we can verify notability via some other source besides the article's two external links (see my comments regarding both Hajj Amin Elahi, The Tanbur Society, and their respective web links at User talk:Johnyajohn#June_2007). The citation of the During book is helpful, although page numbers would be better. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I obtained the During book and the sentences mentioning Haj Amin Elahi do not establish notability. See my comment to User:Kevin Murray above. Teleomatic (talk) 23:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep is it can be better sourced, in needs rewriting to removed speculation if it cant be sourced. --neonwhite user page talk 18:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable musician, specially for those that know Eastern music. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 03:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to provide any references to back up your statement? Teleomatic (talk) 04:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A lack of citations isn't a reason for a delete. Importance/Significance has been claimed, which is enough to satisfy WP:CSD#A7.--Octavian history (talk) 07:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lack of sources that assert notability is a reason for deletion. Claims are not enough, it needs to be backed up or the article will be a stub. --neonwhite user page talk 17:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The policy you keep mentioning is among the criteria for speedy deletion, which doesn't apply here. The subject's notability is in question, and as I'm sure you know, that is typically backed up by reliable references. Teleomatic (talk) 13:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the tag according to wikipedia rules

"If you disagree: Any editor who disagrees with a proposed deletion can simply remove the tag. Even after the page is deleted, any editor can have the page restored by any administrator simply by asking. In both cases the editor is encouraged to fix the perceived problem with the page.

Renominations: Once the proposed deletion of a page has been objected to by anyone, it may not be proposed for deletion again. If an editor still feels the page ought to be deleted, a deletion discussion should be used, as indicated below.[17]

Octavian history (talk) 07:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The above procedure only applies to WP:PROD deletion nominations, not to AfD or CSD. I've restored the tag and warned the user. ~~My opinion on the article is, at present, Neutral.~~ Tevildo (talk) 11:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No reliable sources to indicate the notability of the subject, per WP:MUSIC. To clarify, he's not notable merely because his father is notable, and, to consider him notable as a musician, we need evidence of non-trivial coverage of him or his performances in sources that pass WP:RS. Tevildo (talk) 12:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note Like billions of other people, the person did not live in the United States nor speak English, so 99% of the text about him is in Kurdish. There is now two book citations, a website, New York Times obituaries and plus a lack of citations isn't a reason for a delete. Importance/Significance has been claimed, which is enough to satisfy WP:CSD#A7.--Octavian history (talk) 19:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*KEEP I love his music, a very big man.--Hasan075 (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC) — Hasan075 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.blocked sockpuppet of Octavian history[reply]

Keep Of course we should keep this. I have his tapes that were done in the middle east, and have a read a lot about him.--12.0.30.180 (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note that 12.0.30.180 had already been tagged as an IPsock of User:Johnyajohn concerning this very same article in June 2007 (link). See User talk:12.0.30.180 and, again, User talk:Johnyajohn#June_2007. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the guy is cool, great music.--208.125.21.226 (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think that we need to be sensitive to the difficulty in obtaining western-grade verifyable sources for people in less-well-connected parts of the world. If there was a suspicion that this was some form of fake material then I'd want better proof, but what's there seems to circle around the subject enough to support the article as is. Ideally, more references can be found, but at this time it passes my smell test. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE PS-If you look at the TanburSociety.com website that is endorsing Hajj Amin Elahi’s music, you will notice that they are official members of the Recording Academy, which is the same as the Grammy Awards. The Grammy Awards are the most prestigious venue for musicians in the world. If it was not true, why on earth would an official Grammy member state "Hajj Amin was a master at the art of tanbur... His style which is known as the “Hajj-Amini” style has become universally accepted by many mainstream tanbur players...".--Octavian history (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete. This is why we need to rely on both verifiability and assuming good faith. As more and more majority world articles are created, with subjects that aren't automatically obviously notable (essentially having a lots of good English language reliable sources), we have to rely on articles being well referenced. It's all we really have (in the absence of gatekeeping "authorities" on subjects). ~~This article has references now, asserting his notability, so it should stay~~. Evidently the sources did not assert the notability of this musician. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If I could read Kurdish, Farsi, or Arabic there'd be hundreds of sources. It seems English musicians get a Wikipedia article as soon as they get a record deal even if they go nowhere. Here is someone recognized as a master of a instrument and famous within a stateless nation and he doesn't seem important enough? I think it is. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Kurdish We are the Kurdish people have been censorship for over 1000 years, not good! This man was the great muscian, why american was to take off Kurds? man born in 1919, we kurdi people know him. Please stop censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurdestani (talk • contribs) 22:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC) — Kurdestani (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Why on earth would anyone want to delete such a great muscian? Keep, keep, keep.--198.22.123.103 (talk) 23:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:ILIKEIT. That's not a good enough reason to keep the article. Terraxos (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am a first time user and don't know too much about the subject, but there is obviously some major claims of excellence made by wiki users, the Grammy Awards member website, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicspotgreen (talk • contribs) 03:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC) — Musicspotgreen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete for lack of reliable sources. If this man really was as important as most of the people urging 'Keep!' say he is, something would be written about him in a reliable source somewhere, yet that does not seem to be the case. While he clearly has many fans who would like to see the article kept, reliable sources must be provided in order to do so; in its current form it fails Wikipedia's guideline for the inclusion of biographies. Terraxos (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note It turns out that there was an RFCU done on Octavian history, the author of this article, that revealed extensive use of sockpuppets on a wide range of articles: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Johnyajohn. See also the suspected sockpuppets of Octavian history This explains some of the poorly reasoned 'Keep' votes on this page. Teleomatic (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kouhei Kadono. Neıl ☎ 11:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Eccentric Dead In White Sickroom[edit]

The Eccentric Dead In White Sickroom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Minor work by this author; untouched since creation despite cleanup tags Doceirias (talk) 04:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Doceirias (talk) 04:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Kouhei Kadono. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can't tell if these work meets WP:BK or not, as almost certainly all relevant sources would be in Japanese. Absent any evidence otherwise, though, I'm inclined to the merge proposed above. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The problem is balance - the author's page is just a list of works at the moment. If we were to merge this info, it would be the only work by him with expanded information. Actually, I wouldn't mind having a page on each of his major series, but having a page on one book from one of those series strikes me as unnecessary. Doceirias (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it'll be unbalanced, but that would point up that it needs expansion. Possibly a page for each series would work, but I'd think building up his page first would be a priority. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn, speedy keep. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 06:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies surrounding private highways[edit]

Controversies surrounding private highways (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Page is entirely original research; seems like it was someone's research paper. Has some references, but makes no claims of notability. Page is also orphaned. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is all content that was moved from private highway. There had been several remarks made that the pro and con arguments were silly to have in a general article about private highways, so I moved it. Per the general notability guideline, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This topic meets that threshold. Sarsaparilla (talk) 04:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Why doesn't that page link to this one, then? The header gives no indication of the main page, so I assumed it was just a new page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you didn't find my failure to crosslink the article annyong. Sarsaparilla (talk) 04:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Until you told me that this was a branch from the other page, I had no idea. There were no links across pages at the time. I just added some links around, but they need to be put in the right locations. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. referenced and notable subject. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as withdrawn nomination. Sting au Buzz Me... 05:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I highly recommend a merge to the town though Secret ^account 01:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Burns (Mayor)[edit]

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

The subject is not notable. Burns is a former congressional candidate, but dropped out even before the primary. Propol (talk) 03:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LOCAL, well below WP:BIO threshold. --Dhartung | Talk 06:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable. Madman (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 22:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per WP:BIO "Major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage". ~~And he was the mayor of Arlington Heights, Illinois, a 70,000+ population city in Illinois, that in itself seems notable enough to me.~~ --Dual Freq (talk) 01:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Burns isn't the mayor of Arlington Heights; he is the mayor of Geneva, IL, which has a population of less than 20,000. I agree that being mayor of some communities is notable in itself, but do we want a Wikipedia article for every small-town mayor? I'm not sure where the threshold should be, but I'm pretty certain Burns is beneath it. If I'm wrong, go add some sources to the article, which are lacking. Propol (talk) 02:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I skimmed that part a bit too much. There seems to be a decent amount of material in the article, which is fairly good for a stub. "Kevin Burns" Geneva shows quite a few google news hits, going back to the early 1990s. Recent news is limited to the proposed congressional run and most others are limited to Chicago newspapers. I still think there is enough news items to keep. I don't know where the line is either, but several Mayors listed in Category:Mayors of places in Illinois are lesser known than this one. Clicking two at random found one for New Lenox, Illinois and another for Norridge, Illinois. I'd say this one is keepable. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Burns received a decent amount of coverage in RS during his abortive Congressional primary run and occasional coverage as mayor of a fairly important town in Illinois (it is the county seat of one of Chicago's "collar counties"). Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 03:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has received significant coverage in sources independent of himself. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 11:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is mayor of the county seat of one of the Chicago area counties. He also has received significant press coverage for a small-town mayor. --Jnshimko (talk) 04:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G7 by MichaelBillington. Non-admin closure. Tevildo (talk) 07:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rocking Out Against Voldemedia[edit]

Rocking Out Against Voldemedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Stub that contains not much more than a track listing and is not notable enough to warrant an article as most bands that participated in this compilation album are not notable. I created the article wrongly. Sorry. Hpfan9374 (talk) 03:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This album has actually generated a lot of press here and here for example. That was just a two minute search too. Torc2 (talk) 07:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G7 by MichaelBillington. Non-admin closure. Tevildo (talk) 07:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jingle Spells: Leaky's Rocking Christmas[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Jingle Spells: Leaky's Rocking Christmas

Jingle Spells: Leaky's Rocking Christmas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Stub that contains not much more than a track listing and is not notable enough to warrant an article as most bands that participated in this compilation album are not notable. I created the article wrongly. Sorry. Hpfan9374 (talk) 03:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you created the article and are the only one who has made major contributions you can delete it yourself by placing ((db-author)) on the article. For more information on Speedy Deleting articles see WP:CSD, espcially criterion G7. Billscottbob (talk) 04:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G7 by MichaelBillington. Non-admin closure. Tevildo (talk) 07:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wizards and Muggles Rock for Social Justice![edit]

Wizards and Muggles Rock for Social Justice! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Stub that contains not much more than a track listing and is not notable enough to warrant an article as most bands that participated in this compilation album are not notable. I created the article wrongly. Sorry. Hpfan9374 (talk) 03:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - This one's a little less popular than the other HP-referencing album, but I still found articles on it at MTV and a couple other trivial references. Torc2 (talk) 07:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keepas notable and well-sourced. Bearian (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TRIALOG Project[edit]

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

A Euro-NGO. An earlier version of this at TRIALOG was speedily deleted. Is it notable? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no apparent notability Mayalld (talk) 19:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like an interesting project, why not keep it!? there are other articles in wikipedia which seem less important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.168.213 (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are 915 gscholar hits. Additionally, the article is well-sourced, just in need of formatting. Seems to meet WP:N and WP:V. Billscottbob (talk) 04:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite. It seems to publish a journal on development issues, with contributors from outside the group, so it is probably notable. DGG (talk) 13:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am aware of this organisation, but also know of people who might want to use Wikipedia to find out about it so it seems a sensible candidate for retention. 22 January 2008

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

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

The result was delete. no sources to back up meeting WP:WEB, one of the keep commenters even admitted it, recreate in userspace and link article to my talk page once sources are found. Secret ^account 01:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ĝangalo[edit]

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

This site's been dead since December 2006. Mithridates (talk) 18:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB, not because it's a dead site though, plenty of notable sites are dead. Present Alexa rank is 3,058,650, and according to the graph it never reached the top 100,000. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: ‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏T‏·‏m‏:‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 18:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - although it seems at present to fail WP:WEB I feel that several back links via Esperanto portal shows some importance. I believe relevant sources could be found to improve this article. Sting au Buzz Me... 05:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I should note that this has nothing to do with my opinion on Esperanto, as I'm largely supportive of the language. I think a site like Libera Folio has a much better reason for having a page on the English Wikipedia (it's on the Esperanto and French Wikipedias at the moment). Mithridates (talk) 12:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 22:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep DidiWeidmann (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 county. Secret ^account 01:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dauphin County Library System[edit]

Non-notable. No indication that these public libraries are any different than thousands of others. --Rtphokie (talk) 03:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dauphin County Library System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Completing unfinished nom by User:Rtphokie. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge with Dauphin County. The info might be of some use there, but I certainly agree with the lack of its own notability. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable - doesn't just about every county and equivalent in the western world run a library system? --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per above suggestions. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the article may be badly written, unsourced and not that notable, residents of Dauphin County, Pennsylvania may wish to find out more about their local libary service. It isn't non-notable enough to be deleted in my opinion, and I'm sure WikiProject Pennsylvania might be able to help out with improvement.--Phoenix -wiki 20:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The county is where the state capitol, Harrisburg, PA is located., and the main library is in that city. City libraries can be notable. Harrisburg is a small city (48,000), but its status as the capitol makes it significant. DGG (talk) 14:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Libraries are notable as institutions. Since most individual libraries lack sufficient information it is acceptable to include them in one article for the district, much like we do for school districts. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - nothing here that justifies a separate article but a merge into Dauphin County, Pennsylvania as a section is the normal, sensible course of action. TerriersFan (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 after two weeks. Daniel (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subhro Bandyopadhyay[edit]

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

Notability of the subject has been in questions since the article's creation. While an initial speedy deletion attempt was denied, it appears this article still has not accomplished much in establishing notability. There may also be a conflict of interest at work here since it appears that the original creator may be the subject of the article in question or a relation thereof. Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 19:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I am not familiar with the author at all, nor with that literary field. The person was shortlisted for an important literary award - according to the article, that is - which does not quite fulfil WP:BIO. But people from outside the US/UK are underrepresented on Wikipedia and I think WP:BIO should be interpreted generously if possible. The article needs to be rewritten and sourced which is the biggest problem as I see it. The first step should probably be to change it into a stub and build it again. --Bonadea (talk) 11:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the article says is "Sulista is the name of dialects spoken in the south of both Brazil and Angola". If further information is ever produced, no prejudice against an article being created. Neıl ☎ 11:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sulista (Angola)[edit]

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

Delete "sulista" in Portuguese means southern, so basically this page says - bereft of sources - southern dialects are spoken in the south of Brazil and Angola, without mentioning how these differ from standard languages spoken elsewhere in those countries. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I need is for someone to help me find sources to start up this article. There was a link to it when I originally was reading the article called "Portuguese dialects". I don't think that this article should be deleted because it is just beginning. But we need to wait and see wheat other people in the community have to say before we come to a final decision. learnportuguese (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment this appears to be an actual dialect, but there is so little information on it that I can find in English that I think we would need a portugese speaker to be able to actually disseminate any information on it. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 04:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 03:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spondonacle[edit]

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

This is a hoax, an invented term. What is being described here is nothing more than a pot handle. There are no references cited, and any references on the web seem to be derived from this article. Invented by "Markus Goughh", inspired by Lego and Meccano, ha ha! Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try googling spondonical instead. Then merge with Trangia, removing the second paragraph, which is unsourced speculation. Cosmo0 (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it seems spondonicle is the right spelling, so a merge would be appropriate. However, I still have serious doubts about the term; I own at least three of the things (only one made by Trangia) and have never heard them called anything except "handle". And outdoor gear catalogues never call them anything fancy either, as far as I can see. However, that's a matter for the talk page now. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 11:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC) (I withdraw my merge vote; no point in being half-hearted about it. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC) )[reply]
The fact that no-one seems to know how to spell it suggests that it's not a standard term. My suggestion, since the word is mentioned in Trangia, would be to condense the contents of Spondonacle to a single-sentence definition in parentheses in Trangia and then redirect to that page (and possibly create redirects for the alternative spellings as well). Cosmo0 (talk) 12:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spondonicale, spondonacle? I've only heard "pot-gripper". Anyways, I don't think it should be merged into Trangia because other companies make the same sort of devices. I think it would be better to merge into Portable stove. Billscottbob (talk) 04:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Aside from being The term yields only 122 hits on Google, so I don't think a redirect would be appropriate. Whether or not there should be a redirect for the term if it was spelled properly is another issue altogether, though since that only yields 297 hits, I don't think there should be a redirect there either. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obscure term for item often called a "pot-lifter". There's no sourced content to merge. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 02:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basic animal senses[edit]

Basic animal senses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is unsourced, unencycopedic, and a textbook like tone. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 03:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete essay, unsourced, probably WP:OR. JJL (talk) 03:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, odd anachronistic point of view, possibly a copyvio. Topic covered more than adequately at sense. --Dhartung | Talk 06:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, strange first-person narration complete with screen name signature at the bottom? Yeah, this is someone's soapboax essay. Ig8887 (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete First person essay, WP:OR, and I can't see any overhaul that would change it. Pigman☿ 18:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This looks like either a WP:COPYVIO from a textbook or someone's essay, which is deletable per WP:SOAP and WP:NOT#WEBSPACE Doc Strange (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 02:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

White leaf phenomenon[edit]

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

An IP is convinced this article is a blatant and obvious hoax and they repeatedly tag it for speedy deletion. I have no idea whether this is the case or not, so am sending it here for a wider viewing RMHED (talk) 02:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Utter lack of Google hits indicates hoax. Wryspy (talk) 02:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears to be a hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The way the article is written leads one to believe this is a disease that attacks all vegetation within a given area, while in fact similar phenomena can be observed at any time if one looks hard enough for sick individual plants. The grainy picture shows white flowers, which puts the truthfulness of the entire article in question. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 03:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and speedy close Going to be bold and redirect to Variegation which is essentially the same thing, very much not a hoax and 'White leaf' at least is a reasonable search term. Firelement85 (talk) 04:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD was previously closed as a redirect by someone involved in the debate. I've reopened it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as possible hoax - Unless reliable sources can be found. The books given as reference are not found at Google books. I disagree with a redirect to Variegation. This "phenomenon" is not a form of variegation going by the article. Sting au Buzz Me... 23:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment I am a botanist and while much of the information in the article is incorrect has only been observed on two instances and Plants which experience this phenomenon have been said to die soon after, white sections on plants is real whether it is due to a mutation or as a result of breeding to make the plant more attractive, the plants won't necessarily die but they will grow slower as a result of the lowered capacity for photosynthesis and leaves in most plants is where photosynthesis occurs though it is possible to get the white on stems. I would have fleshed out the article however while researching I discovered that the phenomenon is refered to as leaf variegation and as there was a much better article already on wikipedia it would serve as a redirect because 'white leaf' is at least a reasonable search term if someone wants to know why there is white sections on their plants. Variegation currently doesn't have any references but that is something I hope to work on when I next have time, an appropriate Google search shows many journal articles that describe the instance. Firelement85 (talk) 04:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Total rubbish, waste of space. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 15:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 issue with sources weren't met in this AFD, all it showed that he existed and that't it. Secret ^account 01:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Harmon[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league soccer player, can only find 1 non-wikipedia google result for "Bobby Harmon" relevant to this player's career, and it is his bio for the youth team he currently coaches. Drdisque (talk) 02:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wryspy (talk) 02:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Along with the above, it is also unreferenced and far too short. ― LADY GALAXY 05:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This New York Times article references his signing for the San Diego Sockers, but I can't find any reliable source to confirm he played any matches..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This shows he played for San Diego in the CISL and this shows he played for Detroit, so I'm going to go with weakest possible keep ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - based on ChrisTheDude's research. GiantSnowman (talk) 13:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It needs a full re-write and tidy up. I can't make head nor tail about what it means and whether he's notable enough or not. Peanut4 (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 22:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. Jonathan 22:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no doubt that Harmon played in the CISL, but I'm not sure if that meets the notability requirement. CISL is an indoor soccer league, but I'm not sure it would meet the magic "fully professional league" status that is applied to association football players. Does anyone know? Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found this ([18]) which indicates he played 40 games with Dayton in the 1992-93 MISL season. I'm not sure if MISL was professional, but I think it was. Jogurney (talk) 23:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jogurney, MISL was a fully-pro league as far as I know BanRay 00:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even with the appearances the page is lacking encyclopaedic material and there are no secondary sources attesting to notability. Fails WP:V since several of the alphabet soup constructions haven't yet been verified. TerriersFan (talk) 21:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep agree with you. This article could probably be speedy deleted under various criteria. It's just gooble-di-gook (sp?) in its current form. Peanut4 (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 both. Secret ^account 01:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of White Latin Americans[edit]

List of White Latin Americans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:V. This seems to be an arbitrary list with no references cited that support that any of these individuals meet the criteria as being born of European descent. Nv8200p talk 02:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following page for the same reason and the discussion below:

List of Afro-Latin Americans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)--brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: 3 out of the 4 Keeps are the same IP -81.159.137.3. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is a sourced article and contributors have spent hard work and lots of time on the article. --Chinese3126 (talk) 02:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well, I spend a lot of time doing my hair, but still, its no good.. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 02:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bleedin' 'orrible - unencyclopediC! -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 02:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is WP:OR like you've never seen. Delete. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a directory of loosely associated topics. Besides their heritage, these people have nothing in common. In addition, the list smacks greatly of original research. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wryspy (talk) 02:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Arbitrary ethnic categorization without aubstantiation. —SlamDiego_←T 05:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V. Altairisfar _talk 07:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly nonsense, and aren't most Latin Americans decended from Europeans? --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As mentioned, except for a vanishingly small number of native Amerindian groups that have never intermarried with immigrants, ALL of the people in Latin America have some level of European descent. The terminology that is being coined to justify someone's inclusion on this list is not widespread or accepted, and is not referenced in any case, making the entire list meaningless (and borderline racist). It has as much encyclopedic value as, "List of People Who Have Stood in My Kitchen." Ig8887 (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is always considered to be raciast by non whites...anything done to do with white people , other people simply dont like it....but has this -List of Afro-Latin Americans - been considered for deletion??...eerr no...because noone would consider this to be offensive....and no, white latin americans only represent a third of the whole population in total and are a minority in most countries. Also there is alot of references in the 'actual article' to show they are white etc..and why does this never happen to white people in the USA...nobody questions the USA's definition of ethnicity. -81.159.137.3 (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated the article and I think I classify as white. See for yourself. It's a crappy list based on opinion or original research -Nv8200p talk 20:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Afro-Latin Americans has been added to this afd. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regardless of the merits of this proposal, none of the arguments advanced above this point can be claimed as applicable to this newly added category List of Afro-Latin Americans since the writers of those arguments did not have this category presented to them for consideration. Hmains (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for WP:V. This list has the same problems. -Nv8200p talk 20:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Can someone tell me what the difference is, between the lists of all the List of "German-American", "Italian-American" and "English Americans" etc.. since they are all about their heritage/ethnic background..81.159.137.3 (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike country of origin, race involves WP:OR. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 22:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep List of Afro-Latin Americans. This is one article of a pattern of such such articles found in Category:People of Black African descent--all of which are legitimate encyclopedic WP articles--and this article is required for complete coverage of this subject. Hmains (talk) 19:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lists can be useful for identifying articles that are needed (as red links), but this list could cover half to three-quarters of the population of Central and South America. That makes it much too large to be worthwhile. I note that there are sublists by nationality, but they could be adequately dealt with in a category (and probably are). Peterkingiron (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wrong!! The white population is only a third of the pop in Latin America, read the article!..This is a list only people of mainly White descent, this doesnt include people any other origin... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.118.92 (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, define what "mainly White" means. Because I'm pretty sure that no two people are going to agree on exactly what percentage of European you need in you to qualify as "white", and I'm also pretty sure at least one person on that list would be offended to hear themselves described as "white". If the list were, "Notable Latin Americans who have one or more grandparent who was born in a European country," that would probably still be a worthless article, but it could be researched and sourced. Being "white" is a virtually meaningless term that no two people will agree on. --Ig8887 (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete new list of Afro-Latin Americans, for all the same reasons. --Ig8887 (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, what i meant by define white, is exactly the same as defining someone who is White in the USA or Europe...it doesnt seems to be hard to see that Al Pacino, Johnny depp or Robert De Niro are universly seen to be White people...but who's researched their background, hardly anybody...but to do that with Latin americans is different?..we have people like Jose Marti who are born to spanish parents. Most here are reasearched articles..just an example...If the list is pointless, then why isnt the main article usless also?..86.152.122.244 (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete - pointless —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.82.139.5 (talk) 12:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, if you wish to pursue a transwiki further feel free to try on the talk page. Daniel (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genkou youshi[edit]

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

Delete This is a dictionary article, I suggest transwiking WP:NOT Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wryspy (talk) 02:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 03:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No opinion yet. There's a couple of paragraphs in English in Seeley, Christopher (1991). A History of Writing in Japan. Brill. pp. 184–185. ISBN 9004090819. Sources probably exist in Japanese but they will be hard to find among the hundreds of thousands of GHits for retailers and every single magazine, government bureau, and school essay contest saying "please submit drafts on genkou youshi" [19]. ~~I note with surprise that we lack an article on binder paper (yes, yes, WP:OTHERCRAPDOESNTEXIST).~~ cab (talk) 03:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Loose leaf? —Quasirandom (talk) 04:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah thanks, good find. Redirected. cab (talk) 06:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep I see no difference between this and all the other articles on paper in Category:Paper. They are legitimate encyclopedia articles; so is this. Hmains (talk) 03:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Or more specifically, little difference between this and other stubs in Category:Paper. I'm not clear what makes this intrisically unlikely to grow beyond a dictionary definition, because per policy it's the potential not current stubbiness that matters -- I'm hoping the nominator can expand a little on that. (Obligatory Irrelevancy: Oh so that's what the stuff's called.) —Quasirandom (talk) 03:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a kind of stationery, so I recategorized it. It's now in Category:Stationery. Fg2 (talk) 03:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there are apparently several sources and a decent start on an article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Is this paper also used widely in China, Korea, etc., or is this a uniquely Japanese phenomenom? In either case I'd like to keep, but if the former, it should probably incorporate those countries usage and have a title that covers all three (perhaps grid paper?) Mostlyharmless (talk) 07:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been told that this paper is also used in Korea (however, this is word of mouth, I have no cites yet, and no info on China). I suggest renaming to character paper, or grid paper, or whatever the common non-neoligism term is, which would give scope for including non-Japanese uses. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~.Keep and rename. This references a thing, rather than a concept, which is verifiable, referenceable, and notable through its use by millions daily. Contra Librarianofages, this isn't a dictionary entry. A stub maybe, but certainly has scope for growth. Mostlyharmless (talk) 07:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See how it looks. [20] [21] [22] [23] You cannot graduate schools in Japan without using it. Oda Mari (talk) 17:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, I know what this stuff is but is there really enough that can be said about it to warrant a article? Is there not a general article on types of paper that it can be merged into? The Japanese article is rather big though...If someone could translate that (I don't have the time or interest) then perhaps there would be more of a case for keep.--Him and a dog 12:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very, VERY weak keep. I don't think there should be entries for loose leaf or library paste or correction tape, but they're there and someone thought it was a good idea to keep them. On another track, this is another example of Japanophilia in the English Wiki, but unless it can be redirected into a more general, more worldwide article (i.e. someone a while back thought language education and gogaku, the Japanese word for it, should be separate articles), it should unfortunately stay where it is. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

transwiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.82.139.5 (talk) 12:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was transwiki to Wiktionary. Neıl ☎ 11:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Label scar[edit]

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

Article is nothing more than a dictionary definition and picture gallery. Although a widely used term in retail, it doesn't seem to be notable enough to have its own page -- there seems to be almost no way to expand it beyond a mere dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki, Wiktionary doesn't seem to have an article for Wikt:Label scar yet. There's only one incoming main space link too. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 01:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki per Elipongo. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 02:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki per Elipongo. Wryspy (talk) 02:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. From this page, I learned that a familiar phenomenon had a name. I can think of several routes for expansion of this article: there may be some source out there that discusses how current tenants deal with the phenomenon, and maybe even some label scars that have achieved sufficient note to get some published commentary. The point being, of course, that I disagree with the proposition that this can never be more than a definition. Not sure that Wiktionary is the place for the helpful illustrations, either; they alone should merit keeping this article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moderate keep. As with Smerdis, I can see ways this could be expanded beyong a mere dictdef. Label scars (which i too never knew the name of) are a recurring theme in the work of several visual artists, for instance, and are clearly often a layman's first indication of a building's former purpose. There may also, as Smerdic points out, be some famous label scars out there which could be listed, either real ones or fictional ones. They are certainly a common phenomenon and one that could have more written about it. Grutness...wha? 01:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki - Simple plain ol' dicdef. How "current tenants deal with the phenomenon" is by painting/covering it over, is as far as an expansion can really go. All the pictures belong on their respective Mall's Articles, be they Dead Malls or not. Sorry, but TPH has hit the nailhead on this one. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 13:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I've now expanded it a little beyond the "as far as an expansion can really go" point. Just a tiny bit, mind, but it gives some indication on what could be done with this, given some research effort. Grutness...wha? 23:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But until it has Cites indicating it as a intended Motif or theme of a series, its WP:OR. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD G3. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Williams (actress)[edit]

Victoria Williams (actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

IMDB searches turn up no reasonable matches for the actress name and no matches whatsoever for the title listed in the article. This is just one of several hoax articles created by the same author. —Travis ^talk 00:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete obvious G3. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/redirect to B*Witched. Neıl ☎ 10:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edele Barrett[edit]

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

Lack source to claim other clearly notable as a girl band member, therefore no objection for a merge Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 00:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Knock-Off Nigel has nominated all members of the pop group B*Witched for deletion (or merge). --Canley (talk) 04:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as per my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keavy Lynch. --Canley (talk) 04:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to B*Witched. There's nothing that assumes members of a notable band automatically get their own articles. What has she done on her own that has received substantial third-party coverage? Torc2 (talk) 07:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Canley (talk) 02:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per User:Torc2. No notable accomplishments outside of the context of B*Witched. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 07:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's nothing that assumes members of a notable band automatically get their own articles per se, but since the band is kinda big for one, I'd vote weak keep. Editorofthewiki (talk) 03:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the evidence of independent notability? Torc2 (talk) 08:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.82.139.5 (talk) 12:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/redirect. Done. Neıl ☎ 10:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keavy Lynch[edit]

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

No other notability other than being just a girl band member not to mention that being a pantomime does not mean notability. I would rather recommend a merge should this deletion becomes unsucessful Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 00:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep "No other notability"? Exactly how many notabilities are required? You admit in your nomination that she is notable as a member of very popular Irish pop group B*Witched. --Canley (talk) 04:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, she is only notable for being in that bad and nothing else. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: yes, so she is notable. My point is why are two or more points of notability required and where does this guideline or policy come from? --Canley (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If I can rephrase Knock-Off Nigel, she is not notable outside of B*Witched. Individual members of notable organizations do not automatically inherit notability. Every member of the San Francisco Symphony or Mormon Tabernacle Choir doesn't automatically get a page. Torc2 (talk) 07:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but this band seems big enough for articles on individual members. Anyway, each member of the San Francisco Symphony or Mormon Tabernacle Choir are not notable in their own right because the are not well known outside their famile, while she is known throughout the country. So, therefore, keep. Editorofthewiki (talk) 03:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My response was to the argument that she was notable because she was a member of a notable group. Do you agree that being a member of a notable group does not automatically demonstrate notability? Torc2 (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not automatically, but in more notable groups like this one it does. Editorofthewiki (talk) 14:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to B*Witched. There's nothing that assumes members of a notable band automatically get their own articles. What has she done on her own that has received substantial third-party coverage? Torc2 (talk) 07:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well apparently she's been a pantomime, which is quite an intriguing mental image..... :-) ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to B*Witched. Unless some sources can be found which discuss some notable activities apart from B*Witched, or it can be demonstrated that the B*Witched article is too large and needs to be split. Right now there are mo credible independent sources. --Kevin Murray (talk) 11:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, it seems to my mind that this is setting an extraordinary precedent. Can someone point me to an article about a band or musical group where full biographical articles about the members have been merged into the article about the group? Does this apply to members of sports teams? --Canley (talk) 23:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sports teams is a different matter as they are high profile in their own rights, whereas band members are usually not on their own other than being in that band and usually vanish from the showbiz radar when their band split up. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fucked Up, Two Gallants (band), Mates of State... This is not setting any kind of precedent; it's the appropriate method of dealing with this situation. Torc2 (talk) 12:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Canley (talk) 02:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, content is in the history if someone wishes to merge some of it. Daniel (talk) 03:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sinéad O'Carroll[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Sinéad O'Carroll

Sinéad O'Carroll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No other notability other than being just a girl band member other having a minor role in a soap. I would rather recommend a merge should this deletion becomes unsucessful Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 00:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Knock-Off Nigel has nominated all members of the pop group B*Witched for deletion (or merge). --Canley (talk) 04:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as per my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keavy Lynch. --Canley (talk) 04:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to B*Witched. There's nothing that assumes members of a notable band automatically get their own articles. What has she done on her own that has received substantial third-party coverage? Torc2 (talk) 07:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to B*Witched. Unless some sources can be found which discuss some notable activities apart from B*Witched, or it can be demonstrated that the B*Witched article is too large and needs to be split. Right now there are mo credible independent sources. --Kevin Murray (talk) 11:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to B*Witched. No independent sources, agree with nom that she isn't awful notable per WP:MUSIC (solo that is. B*Witched exceeds all of those critereon) to garner her own article. This really belongs in the B*Witched article Doc Strange (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect That way the GFDL is satisfied. Notability is not inherited either. --Solumeiras 14:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Solumeiras (talk • contribs)

Redirect. The article says the artsst herself stated she's not continuing her solo career, so there won't be any new info to add anyway. --Tikilounge (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 22:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Canley (talk) 02:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 B*Witched. Neıl ☎ 10:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Armaou[edit]

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

No other notability other than being just a girl band member. I would rather recommend a merge should this deletion becomes unsucessful Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment, not to mention clear COI issues considering the article creater is user:Armaou. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Knock-Off Nigel has nominated all members of the pop group B*Witched for deletion (or merge). --Canley (talk) 04:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as per my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keavy Lynch. --Canley (talk) 04:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to B*Witched. Unless some sources can be found which discuss some notable activities apart from B*Witched, or it can be demonstrated that the B*Witched article is too large and needs to be split. Right now there are mo credible independent sources. --Kevin Murray (talk) 11:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Canley (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per User:Kevin Murray. No notable accomplishments are listed that aren't part of the article B*Witched already. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 07:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. Should the talked about solo career go anywhere then she can have her own article.--Him and a dog 12:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the fact that she will have a solo career constitututes notability when it is combined with the fact she played for a notable band and is married to a notable person. Editorofthewiki (talk) 03:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.82.139.5 (talk) 12:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, if you wish to pursue a merge, please start a merge dicussion. Otherwise this AfD clearly has no consensus to delete, meets WP:V and it has reliable sources. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smith Academy[edit]

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

Delete article absolutely does not assert schools notability, merge into rel. school district per common practice. Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 22:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above, per common practice for grade schools that have no separate means of establishing notability. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 07:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a school that teaches down to Kindergarten solely in languages such as Japanese and Chinese is not notable?[24] Highly succesful teaching across the board despite teaching in a foreign language?[25] Is there another one like this? Sure it needs sourcing up but there are plenty available. I'm all for merging common or garden elementary schools but not unique ones like this. TerriersFan (talk) 05:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even within its district, it is not exactly unique [26] . cab (talk) 06:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the only immersion school but in Japanese and Chinese, exceptionally difficult as second languages, as far as I can see it is. TerriersFan (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Bruns Avenue Elementary School is the International Language Academy with French Immersion, German Immersion and Japanese Immersion (grades K-5)". Nationwide there are 553 elementary and middle schools offering the Japanese language (including immersion and as a foreign language) [27]. cab (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chinese :-)? Never mind; well researched! And thanks to your hard work it is now a keep on multiple sources thus meeting WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 17:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the usual practice for grade schools is to merge if there is nothing substantial to say, or nothing particularly distinctive. This is one of the one that is distinctive, and for which there is material. All articles on a subject are not usually equally poor (or equally good), so general deletion rationales not taking note of the individual article are usually not appropriate. . DGG (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as appropriate. Sources may be appropriate in language immersion where it may be more notable. CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Language immersion should be about the general topic, and maybe specific examples mentioned in the context of an academic discussion of language immersion, not specific examples lacking larger significance to the article as a whole. Merging this to there would be like tacking a blurb onto the end of the Jazz music article about every jazz band who gets written up in the local paper. cab (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral between keep or merge even though I put in a bit of work myself at cleaning up the article, I'm not convinced. The second-place finish in the Goldman Sachs award competition is a start, and their curriculum is at least slightly unusual, but the fact that there's no coverage outside of their local metro paper doesn't sit well with me. The comments of The Onion =) about local sports coverage [28] often apply to local education coverage as well. cab (talk) 00:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article absolutely does assert schools notability, now. Thanks to TerriersFan's excellent work, article meets WP:ORG criteria for having at least one substantial, independent, reliable source. Noroton (talk) 03:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep because of proven notabilty Secret ^account 19:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously. This school is a clear standout among the class of primary schools; painting all primary school articles with a one-size-fits all brush is not the wikipedia way. This article meets inclusion criteria and is encyclopedic. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination withdrawn. Sources demonstrating notability have been provided; no point in stringing this out. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

M.I.A. (band)[edit]

M.I.A. (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article was speedied as A7 but DRV overturned in favor of a fuller discussion here. The concern is still notability per WP:BAND which does not seem to be demonstrated. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
* Delete I swear I AFD'd this about 3 years ago! still N/N per nom. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 00:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KeepBand has released several albums on a notable indy label: s.5 of wp:music. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 02:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. unsourced article fails to establish how it passes WP:MUSIC. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly meets WP:MUSIC criteria 5 and 10. Has been expanded from original article. See talk page. Gaohoyt (talk) 01:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Clearly does not meet wp:music - 5? If these labels were notable do you think they wouldn't have an article on WP? and 10. perhaps you could show how the compilation they're on is notable? -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's Alternative Tentacles, of Dead Kennedys fame. Sorry, I should have wikified it, though I'm surprised you haven't heard of it. Gaohoyt (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 02:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Neutral for now They have a pretty thorough biography at All Music Guide; however, given the name, finding other sources may prove difficult, so I'll wait until someone with more patience digs up another source or two. Are any of the labels they recorded for notable? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets criterion 5 of WP:MUSIC by having multiple albums on notable labels. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marginal keep. Wryspy (talk) 02:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? This is a consensus, not a vote, so just saying "keep" has no weight. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep many releases listed in Steven Blush's discography section to American hardcore: a tribal history. I'll look into this some more, but for now I'm going "keep". Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep okaythen, the band has two albums on a notable indie label (one of them is a re-issue, but still), There is an Allmusic entry, which confirm releases on Alternative Tentacles in the biography. Also, they meet 4 other WP:MUSIC criterion. This page does however, need a major cleanup from it's current state. Doc Strange (talk) 18:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 03:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Dawbarn[edit]

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

No other notability other than being just a boy band member, not to mention that being a pantomime does not mean notability. I would rather recommend a merge should this deletion becomes unsucessful Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to 911. There's nothing that assumes members of a notable band automatically get their own articles. What has Dawbarn done on his own that has received substantial third-party coverage? The link to his personal project isn't enough. Torc2 (talk) 07:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as well as appearing in the band, he also appeared in a TV show. That, in my mind, constitutes notability. Editorofthewiki (talk) 14:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Where are the sources, and where is the evidence of independent notability for his appearance on this show? Torc2 (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.82.139.5 (talk) 12:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -Djsasso (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clay Thompson[edit]

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

Biography of a non-notable person per WP:BIO. IamMarkBlake (talk) 00:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 22:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article makes no effort to cite sources to establish notability. May be some biographical WP:COI issues here as well. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 07:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 911 (band). -Djsasso (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Brennan[edit]

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

No other notability other than being just a boy band member, not to mention that being a pantomime does not mean notability. I would rather recommend a merge should this deletion becomes unsucessful Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 00:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment, not to mention clear COI issues considering the article creater is user:Armaou (assumeing it is created by somebody related). Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 00:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, meets WP:BIO as member of notable UK pop group 911 (band). --Canley (talk) 04:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment, what notable member, its not as if he has a sucessful solo career or being in other band which has another top 40 hits. My reason is most of these in his article is about the band and nothing else, plus not to mention that being in pantomime is nowhere as notable as being in West End or Broadway, not to mention that isn't that where past it celebs go to die, career wise. Also he had done nothing notable other than being in that teeny-bopper group. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My point is no part of the notability guidelines indicate that a member of a notable group is not notable enough to have a biographical article which I strongly disagree should be merged with the band article. Kurt Cobain, for example, never had a solo career or was in another Top 40 band other than Nirvana. Footballers rarely achieve anything outside their team. Your comments about "teeny-bopper groups" and nomination of only members of B*Witched and one of their husbands really make me question your motivations, but I'll try and assume good faith and assume you have a broader plan to what I see as an unnecessary "rationalisation" of numerous biographical articles. --Canley (talk) 00:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Kurt Cobain easily meets the notability criteria at WP:MUSIC, since there have been numerous TV shows, books, etc. on his life as considered separately from Nirvana. The same can't be said for the topic of this article - otherwise, there would be some cited sources establishing notability. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 04:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Point taken, bad example! I still disagree, but I see from WP:OUTCOMES that this sort of action is not as uncommon as I thought. As long as the edit history remains for the subject, I suppose a redirect is not unreasonable. My apologies to the nominator for doubting his motivation as well. --Canley (talk) 05:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 911. There's nothing that assumes members of a notable band automatically get their own articles. What has Brennan done on his own that has received substantial third-party coverage? References to his agent or personal page aren't good enough. Torc2 (talk) 07:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 22:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 911 (band). Half this article is about the band rather than the actual topic of the article, and barring that, the article contains no noteworthy content. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 07:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect --LeyteWolfer (talk) 14:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.82.139.5 (talk) 12:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 02:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johnston PhysX Engine[edit]

Johnston PhysX Engine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Non notable software (rendering engine). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to PhysX, though I'm willing to consider that such a redirect could be implausible - in which case deletion would be better. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looking back on this now, I agree with the lower two posters that there's nothing that matches this page to PhysX. My apologies on suggesting the redirect. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to PhysX I agree with the above poster, although I would like to add that this article also requires cleanup and linking if it survives. ― LADY GALAXY 05:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The articles creator was actively expanding the article when I took this to AfD, but unfortunately, he was also removing AfD notices. After being warned, he got blocked, so that may have stopped the developement of the article. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfair The articles creator is unable to go onto wikipedia because of the ban, but I am one of the fellow creators of the Johnston and it has no relation to PhysX in anyway. It is not a redirect, if the name is the problem, we will change it. User: xXxTehxXx 14:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 22:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given that the editor was making useful contributions but cannot now and the nom was involved in an edit war (on the right side of it if such a thing can happen) I'd suggest the nom withdraw the AfD for now and bring it back in a few weeks. Beyond that, I don't know enough about the topic to have a clue. Hobit (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I'm not implying bad faith on the part of the nom. I merely think that there is a chance this is a notable topic and we should take the time to figure it out. Also WP:BITE might apply here. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit startled by this. I do recognise that you say you don't think I was acting in bad faith, do you believe placing back an AfD tag is edit warring? And do you think that for putting it back, when he kept removing it, which resulted in the users block (he should be long unblocked now, by the way), I should withdraw my nom? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence that "Johnston PhysX Engine" refers to the same topic described by the PhysX article, and since this article appears to refer to a product that doesn't exist yet, it also runs afoul of WP:CBALL. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 07:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Particularly for things like software, if they're notable, they should be on the web. A Google search for "Johnston PhysX Engine" brings up only four pages, all four traceable back to this Wikipedia article (i.e. either Wikipedia or wikirage). In effect, not a single Google hit. Not notable. --Coppertwig (talk) 16:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 01:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per reasons mentioned above. Earthbendingmaster 01:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google search found less than one page of results, and all were from Wikipedia/mirrors of Wikipedia. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 01:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 01:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nomination withdrawn. Bduke (talk) 01:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hispanic Racing Team[edit]

Hispanic Racing Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

~~This team never ran. Fails to meet notability standards. D-Day (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)~~ I choose to cancel this Afd after some research from Smashville proved me wrong. --D-Day (talk) 13:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, happened 15 years ago, even 3 years ago would not be notable. Soxred93 | talk count bot 00:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If all professional athletes are notable, then wouldn't teams be notable? This was a NASCAR-initiated attempt at diversity that eventually ended up in Mexico City being added to the Busch schedule. That it failed doesn't make it any less notable. And contrary to the nom (and his edits to the article) - the team did run. [29]. I don't know about the faith of the edit, but I think it's a little odd to put in incorrect information and then nominate it for AfD based on said info. --Smashville^BONK! 02:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Note that the team really never did run, at least according to the cited sources. The article cited by User:Smashville above was written before the event at Atlanta which subsequently (according to the first reference in the Wikipedia article) got rained out. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 07:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The team did run. The references in the article refer to results of previous races. --Smashville^BONK! 05:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The team did run, but one DNQ does not constitute notability. --D-Day (talk) 13:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's more than a DNQ. [30][31] --Smashville^BONK! 07:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, they did run. Good work. --D-Day (talk) 13:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However...I'm not opposed to a merge if there is an appropriate article to merge into...it is a little funny that the "Hispanic Racing Team" ran races with a white guy from Kentucky... --Smashville^BONK! 17:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 01:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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