< January 28 January 30 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp×g 22:51, 17 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)===Red String (webcomic)===


Red String (webcomic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I've proposed the deletion of Red String (webcomic). A simple Google search [1] implies its lack of notability (most of the results are self-referential), and the article does not give any indication of its notability or even verifibility. --Muna (talk) 01:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

List of goals scored by Raúl González

List of goals scored by Raúl González (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hopeless statistics cruft. He has scored 207 league goals, nobody wants to read a list of every goal. No merge because that would be detrimental to the article quality. Punkmorten (talk) 14:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Punkmorten (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Bryan Arguez

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

Fails WP:BIO as he hasn't played in a fully professional league. GauchoDude (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. John254 00:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Me and the Pumpkin Queen

Me and the Pumpkin Queen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable book that fails WP:FICT. There is no substantial coverage in secondary sources. The article is a stub on a non-notable topic with a plot summary. Pilotbob (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I misspoke about WP:FICT, but his clearly fail fails WP:BK criteria. It has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works independent of the book itself. The commentary in the reviews is not critical or analytical. The review content is aimed at children and some of the publications only seem to give positive reviews (for example, the Discovery Girls review). The book has not won any major literary awards, been adapted to a motion picture or TV show. It is not demonstrated that it is used in instruction in schools nor is the author historically significant. This book is clearly not notable. Pilotbob (talk) 04:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
If you read the reviews that I found on Academic Search Complete (the published ones without online links), you will see that the book is clearly notable, is recommended to children and even a broader audience due to the horticulutural references, and that the non-trivial independent reviews are indeed analytical and critical and consistent with reviews concerning many other books. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
If you think Kirkus, Hornbook, School Library Journal, and Booklist always give positive reviews, you must not have read them. Kirkus especially has a reputation for being hard to please, and Hornbook isn't far behind. Those four are, along with Publishers Weekly, the important journals for American publishing for children. Getting notice in even one of them is hard -- four of them, then yes it's a notable book. Passes WP:BK #1. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep notable book that passes WP:FICT with substantial coverage in secondary sources concerning a notable topic. Article needs improvement only. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep per above. I see indep sources on refs.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

James Doran

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

Non-notable actor, no claims of notability, only occasional guesting roles sporadically. Prod was removed with no legit reasoning. Corvus cornixtalk 23:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Humphrey Evans

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

Genealogical info, no claims of notability, prod was removed with no meaningful explanation. Corvus cornixtalk 22:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Roger Espinoza

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

Contested prod. Player fails WP:BIO as he hasn't played in a fully professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I am also adding Patrick Nyarko, Pat Phelan, Eric Brunner, Mike Zaher, Alex Nimo, Ely Allen, Yomby William, Sean Franklin, Julius James and Josh Lambo to this AfD as they also fail WP:BIO by not having played in a fully pro league.

I cannot see that you are arguing for a level of paticipation greater than that of the Varsity Match in English Rugby: amateur participation in a professional sport, that happens to attract some media coverage. There is professional soccer in the US, ergo soccer in the US is not at its highest level an amateur sport. These men have not participated in it, perhaps in time they will, and then their articles wll be fully justified. There are countless apprentices at professional clubs in Europe and South America who play in front of paying audiences every week of the season, and who have no other occupation, but they do not reach notability, even if they attract some media attention. I have not seen any compeking reason why their US equivalents should be treated differently. Kevin McE (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
You are reading the definition wrong. WP:BIO doesn't say that the amateur level must be the highest level in that sport, it says "the highest level in amateur sports." NCAA Division I meets that definition. Otherwise there would be a whole slew of college athletes in sports that also have professional systems that would be non-notable. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 01:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
No, you are reading it wrong. It has been well-established by WP:Football that football is not an amateur sport, and that this is not relevant here. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't stipulate to that. Soccer is a sport at BOTH the amateur and professional levels. That may contradict with your worldview, but it is reality. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 15:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
My worldview? Perhaps you should ask some other WP:Football members. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Well when they make their debut, they will deserve their article. UNtil then, your confidence that they will make the grade does not justify breaking WP:CRYSTAL. Kevin McE (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
It's a completely different system. I realize that some articles that you wrote recently were deleted under this policy, but these players have competed at the highest amateur levels in NCAA competition and were drafted professionally in a major sport league. This competition makes them notable already, and WP:CRYSTAL is not applicable. My confidence that they will someday make an appearance has nothing to do with it. matt91486 (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
One minor correction - NCAA DI athletes are notable PROVIDED that they meet the general criterion of independent coverage. We don't need a series of articles on long snappers of the Sun Belt Conference. --B (talk) 01:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, of course. I'm not trying to say that every D1 athlete should get their own article, just in this context, the combination of their college experience and their drafting. matt91486 (talk) 01:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
So you're saying I shouldn't write backup longsnappers, deepsnappers, holders, gunners, and punt blockers of the MEAC, right? ;) --B (talk) 02:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Now as fascinating as an analysis of Delaware State's special teams may be, it might not be the most durable article creation, haha. matt91486 (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • It took about 45 seconds to find an article on an English player with no professional experience, Alex Campana, I'm sure there are hundreds más. м info (talk) 02:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Maybe you should have spent more than 45 seconds: the article clearly states that he has made at least two first-team, competitive appearances for Watford, a fully professional team. However, you are right that there are many others that should not have articles. Members of WP:Football work hard to remove these results of excessive enthusiasm from supporters aware of the juniors at their clubs, and we are simply applying the same principles here. We do not normally encounter so much resistance to the neutral application of a clear policy. Kevin McE (talk) 09:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The appropriate WP footy page is NOT a policy, or even a guideline. Even WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BIO are guidelines, which clearly state that it is possible for a player to be notable without having played in a professional league (Wikipedia:Bio#Additional_criteria). There's resistance to this AfD as there's a reasonable argument that some of these players have already achieved notability ("significant coverage in reliable secondary sources"). Paulbrock (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
"A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included."

(emphasis mine, taken from Wikipedia:BIO#Additional_criteria). I suggest that the subjects are evaluated against the key criteria of "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources" (WP:N). Paulbrock (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL again. How long do we wait until he hasn't played a game? 25, 30, 35? пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, if that's the case, the articles can be easily recreated once they've appeared. But, without wishing ill on anyone, if one of those guys breaks a leg badly and never plays a game, and then goes on to enjoy a satisfying but thoroughly unnotable life working in a bookshop, raising three children and breeding cats, should their article have been kept? The question is, are they notable now, hence the WP:FOOTY criteria of not notable until they've actually started a game... which is why all those Man United kids mentioned above, all of whom will (barring injury or other disaster) have professional careers somewhere, are not yet notable and their articles will be deleted. --Dweller (talk) 10:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

These players have signed or will sign with an mls side, Eric Brunner and other of these players have already signed mls contracts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elomen76 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

1) Is it logical that a project of Wikipedia, such as WP:FOOTBALL, can set more stringent guidelines than those established by WP:BIO? There are a number of comments here that suggest to me that WP:FOOTBALL has set a bar for notability that trumps any other claim on notability that would apply elsewhere on the site, and that seems off somehow. Please understand that this is no way an attack on WP:FOOTBALL, or on the folks doing hard work on its behalf.

2) I really wish we could get a linguist to parse the WP:BIO section on athletics. I feel like part of the flaw is the way that this language is written - it seems to lead many to a conclusion that describing sports as professional or amateur is an either/or proposition, and that's just not a logical conclusion. A sports league can be either professional or amateur. A player in a sport can be competing as either a professional or an amateur. The sport itself - most sports, in fact - can be competed at either the professional or amateur level, so classifying it as one or the other doesn't make sense. In fact, I'd point to selections from two articles that are germane to this discussion in particular. First, Association football, which reads in part "Today, football is played at a professional level all over the world ... A very large number of people also play football at an amateur level.". Second, United States Soccer Federation, which is currently the featured federation on the Association Football Portal, and which reads in part "It is a member of FIFA, and is responsible for governing amateur and professional soccer ...". Both of those articles explicitly envision that football can be played as either a professional or as an amateur - how, then, is it possible to classify the entire sport of football as "professional", and then only apply the first of the WP:BIO guidelines as the notability test for everyone who plays it.

I guess all this is to say that I feel that the WP:BIO guidelines of Competitors and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis. and Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them). should not be read as mutually exclusive. It would seem to me that if Roger Espinoza has competed at the highest level in amateur sports - and I have to believe that NCAA Division 1 soccer ought to at least sit alongside the USDL in this regard - and also satisfies the criteria of having secondary sources published about him, then he's notable and this is a Keep. If there are no secondary sources, then it's a Delete verging on Weak keep. Of course, your mileage may vary. Mlaffs (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete, if/when any of these players make their debut for a fully professional club then they will meet the current notability criteria for footballers, any claim that they are sure to do so because the American system is different to the Euro system relies on WP:CRYSTAL. Allowing these articles to be kept due to the vociferous defence from U.S soccer enthusiasts would create a clear double standard between US youth football and youth footballers in the rest of the world. King of the NorthEast 20:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep, as has been said, NCAA Division I is the top amateur division in the United States, along with the PDL. Also, being drafted makes a person inherently notable, not because of their potential to play professionally, but merely for having the talent and media attention to be selected. Che84 (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. They are at the top of an AMATEUR field, and not one linked up to professional ones. The NCAA is a stand-alone entity. matt91486 (talk) 16:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
No, it's simply not notable. As I keep saying, if they're so great, these guys will play professionally in no time. And then they'll meet the requirements. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
This isn't a debate on their skill. They've done enough to satisfy WP:BIO before being professionals. matt91486 (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Judgement of skill is subjective and POV. Criteria for fulfilling a policy must be verifiable, like whether he has played in a professional league. Kevin McE (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Right. We agree on that. I'm just saying that WP:BIO explicitly also has other avenues for notability for amateur athletes, and these players meet those. matt91486 (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
What?!?! It very clearly DOESN'T have explicit avenues for notability for amateur athletes! It talks about athletes in amateur sports (which football is not). The reason there's a massive debate here is for the very reason that it's not explicit whether or not that covers the individuals being dealt with here. Don't try and twist it. People above have claimed that the statement is ambiguous. Fine, maybe it is. But the one thing it isn't is explicit! Robotforaday (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know, I think it explicitly states this: "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports." It clearly has explicit avenues for amateur athletes. Some people believe it is ambiguous whether or not they should count as amateur athletes, but there ARE explicit avenues for amateur athletes. I don't appreciate your insinuations that I'm being improper. matt91486 (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
If they have the proper sources, yes, but if they don't, then no Secret account 22:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
But, just for a moment, let's accept the premise that football is a "professional" sport. However, again per the opening paragraphs of WP:BIO:
"Basic criteria
A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.
Additional criteria
A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included."
"Additional criteria". To me, that means that the standard of having played a game in a professional league is a perfectly valid starting point for determining notability - that is, it's an "inclusionary" standard. However, it's only the starting point - it can't be the end of the discussion, an "exclusionary" standard.
Please, keep in mind that nobody - or, at least I hope nobody - is trying to argue that the mere fact of having played in the NCAA division 1, or the U.S. Premier Development League, or the Football Conference, makes you notable. It's having played at that level, plus having valid secondary sources, that's what matters. So, if Roger Espinoza, Patrick Nyarko, or anyone else listed in this AfD has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, independent of them, and not trivial - per the basic criteria, which must necessarily apply to any and all biographical articles within this site, even ones in which the Football Project or any other Wikipedia Project has a significant interest - then they're notable. Mlaffs (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[16] - Article in Richmond Times

[17] - Article in Washington Post.

This CLEARLY demonstrates WP:N and WP:BIO's criteria of "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources" doesn't it? This isn't about amateur versus professional, America versus Europe. Is it possible for (some of) these players to be notable without making a professional appearance? Yes. Are all of the players listed for deletion notable? Maybe, maybe not. Espinoza has one source listed,Nyarko has several, two of which I've highlighted here. Am I missing something here about why the appearance criteria should overrule this? Paulbrock (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Because it will open the door to pretty much everyone who's kicked a ball. It's useful to have a cut-off point. Robotforaday (talk) 01:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes,a cut-off point is needed - significant coverage in secondary sources IS the cut-off point. I play football, but no-one is going to publish an article about me (playing football) in a reliable secondary source, hence no WP article.... Paulbrock (talk) 02:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, I've been nowhere near amateur football level, yet I know I've been published in at least two reliable sources, yet I know I'm not notable enough for my own entry. Peanut4 (talk) 02:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Ditto. Robotforaday (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Significant coverage in something like the Washington Post? Maybe my 15 minutes of fame haven't come round yet! :-)...Paulbrock (talk) 09:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not all that far fetched, you know. The Liverpool Echo (circulation around 100,000) has decent coverage of sports being played at an amateur level. In fact, when you take the Liverpool Echo even more local newspapers published around Merseyside by Trinity Mirror (each with a circulation in the 10,000s), you could even make a case using this "two independent sources" idea for the creation of articles about children playing for their school team. While even I would admit that there is a gulf difference between Roger Espinoza et al. and some kid who's played for Sefton U-11s, all I'm saying is that it's so easy to gather "multiple sources" in this media saturated age that we need secondary criteria in order to ensure notablity. It's not an option to simply say "I can find something written in a newspaper about them, so they must be notable". Robotforaday (talk) 10:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Spot on. And now the BBC have pages for junior football, little Johnny could find himself a source from one of the most reputable and widely read out there. It doesn't mean he's notable though. Peanut4 (talk) 14:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
And yet WP:BIO allows for amateur athletes. This can obviously be interpreted as a worst-case scenario as you state, but this isn't about U-11 players. It's about NCAA players. Let's not lose sight of that. People argue for and against precedent in every AfD, so let's not worry about U11 players and stick to whether or not these players do. matt91486 (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Amateur athletes in amateur sports. We're talking about a pro sport here, a very big pro sport. Peanut4 (talk) 15:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
NCAA? Amateurs in a worldwide (the biggest in the world) professional sport. Yawn. When these guys make it to the pro leagues then we'll be interested. Until then, non notable. Really very simple. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
That's all well and good, but I'm not sure we've ever come to the consensus that amateur is only valid in sports without professionals. What sports DON'T have professionals? Even figure skating has a professional tour. matt91486 (talk) 17:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
An intriguing argument by Robotforaday. WP:N talks of academic papers as suitable sources, but I understand it covers reputable newspapers. Washington Post has 700,000 circulation, more than the Times, and the articles cited are about Nyarko, not merely mentioning him in passing as part of a match report. If there were several interviews of a 11 yr old published in 'big' papers, I'd want to know why he was getting the coverage and what (if any) notability he had.
Robot asserts we need secondary criteria in order to ensure notablity, though WP:BIO explicitly states that
"Failure to meet these (additional) criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included"
So I'm a bit confused! There is obviously precedent for following the WP:FOOTY guideline, and I can see why adding an article for every interview in every local paper is not sensible, so what is the correct application of this part of WP:BIO? Paulbrock (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

←For those who are interested, there's a parallel discussion going on at WP:FOOTBALL right now about notability of draftees. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by kwami. (non-admin closure) RMHED (talk) 23:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Letter names in different languages or alphabets

Letter names in different languages or alphabets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Prod removed with nonsense reason in edit summary. Prod reason was, "Merely copied from English alphabet and Greek alphabet, except for the Turkish, which has now been added to Turkish alphabet. Author never expanded to the point of being interesting. Having this information in more than one article, besides being redundant, makes maintenance more difficult. The English names, for example, have a history of being changed (e.g. "see" for "cee") by people who don't understand the concept; indeed, "a" was misspelled "ay" on this article, an error which was corrected on the main article a long time ago" Corvus cornixtalk 22:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted after 6 days. kwami (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, but I recommend cleanup; the article reads like a hagiography. Sandstein (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Jay A. DeLoach

Jay A. DeLoach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. Only sentence indicating any notability outside your typical Military officer is "played an instrumental role in implementing a visionary "Memorandum of Understanding" between the Submarine Force Active component and the Reserve component", with no source verifying that assertion, and is by itself is pretty weak. The subject has not received significant coverage by independent reliable sources. The article amounts to the typical biography that every flag officer has introducing him/her, and I suspect it is a copy and paste of just that. The "Search for the USS Alligator" section only mentions that he "helped" in the search, not mentioning any role he might have had in the operation. — OcatecirT 22:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Keep - article well written and sourced and meets all requirements established by Wikipedia policy. Subject is featured in the "Who's Who in Executives and Professionals for 2002, 2003, and 2004." in accordance to the official bio of the U.S. Navy which makes him notable, see [18]. There is no "paste" as claimed. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment, and I quote from Vice Admiral Donald: RDML "DeLoach played a critical role in implementing a visionary Memorandum of Understanding between the Submarine Force Active component and the Reserve component. This MOU pioneered many key initiatives that have since been adopted Navy-wide. For example, Active Component Commanders have been assigned as Regular Reporting Senior Officers for their associated Reserve unit Commanding Officers for the past six years in the Submarine Force." soruce: [21] Tony the Marine (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  • That's not a direct quote for the admiral, and I have no idea how this "memorandum of understanding is" (or what role exactly he played in implementing it), but I'd rather err on the side of caution and keep the article, as there's plenty of coverage on him as well. Maybe something with knowledge of the navy can explain the importance Weak Keep Corpx (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep - According to google search, DeLoach is notable. I can't understand why anyone would nominate an article of this calibur when there are so many "junk" articles in Wikipedia to choose from. A typical example of what I am talking about is: Lola Corwin. Now, that I could understand if it were nominated for deletion. Antonio Martin (talk) 05:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Went ahead and took care of that one for us. --BizMgr (talk) 06:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep. I was, with very little effort, able to find more than enough references to DeLoach to satisfy WP:Notability. I will leave to the academians to complete the research, but there is plenty of available 3rd party coverage. --BizMgr (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete. This academician was unable to find any. There's one report in the Virginian-Pilot, but that's nowhere near enough. USN releases do not count as independent sources. Relata refero (talk) 19:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep: Notable on two counts. USN flag officer and, at time of retirement, one of only four Hispanic admirals in the U.S. Navy. — ERcheck (talk) 05:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Are all flag officers notable? Relata refero (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Since others seem to have difficulty finding sources, here are some. Sourced. These are just the first three that popped up searching for DeLoach and Navy Reserve reorganization, which he had a key role in. The fact that he was the key architect for such a massive restructure, which earned multiple press notabilities, alone should satisfy WP:Notability. As previously stated, I believe the above arguments are more than sufficiently strong for a keep. The fact that he is cited as an authoritative reference in dozens of articles and journals should also carry weight. --BizMgr (talk) 09:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ Foutch, Michael. "Determination to live up to family heritage leads to flag rank for Reserve Force leader". Daily Online News, p8. September 13, 2004
  2. ^ Caesar, Julius. "Mission Effectiveness". Mid-Atlantic Currents, page 9. Spring 2005, Vol 36, Iss 2
  3. ^ Wiltrout, Kate. "Surface Aid for the U.S. War on Terror". The Virginia-Pilot, August 24, 2006.
As I said, I saw the Virginian-Pilot article. Of the others, one is on a personal website that's not allowable, and the other is a .mil article, thus not an independent source and not relevant for notability. Relata refero (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Why is a Navy-pub'd newspaper not independent or referential? He didn't write the article, nor did he have any sway over it. The Navy Journalism Corps reports independently like any other journalist. This is not a DoD press release, this is a published article in a print paper. Furthermore, DoD and .mil sources are referenced tens of thousands of times in articles about U.S. equipment and munitions (including USS Alligator, cited in this article). Is this incorrect? --BizMgr (talk) 06:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Not at all, I said an article in a local paper is not enough. Relata refero (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)e
Perhaps I should have wikified The Virginian-Pilot. It is the largest daily in Virginia, even larger in distro than the Washington Post. It is a multi-time Pulitzer winning paper complete with it's own Wikipedia article. It is also a Top-100 distro paper in the U.S. It is not a local paper. --BizMgr (talk) 02:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

David Marks (psychologist)

David Marks (psychologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Tagged as unreferenced since May 2007, cites a few sources but not independent ones. Sole biographical source is his own web page. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

fair to mention that Who's who is not accepted for notability, but is , like CVs a n acceptable source for noncontroversial bio details. Fact tags were added to this article for many totally routine items in the CV--is there some reason to think the material there wrong? Academic CVs are semi-official and almost always reliable as people can get fired for faking them. Yes, in principle they can be challenged here, but before going to the work of verifying them as if we were an investigatory body, there should be some reason for doubt. (Last spring there was one that did look inconsistent, and the pubs could not be found, so there was reason for doubt, & I did investigate the sources and could not find the PhD after multiple cross-checking & the article was deleted. took half a day. No reason to do this sort of thing routinely.) DGG (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Infamous moments in Saturday Night Live history

Infamous moments in Saturday Night Live history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete pure OR and subjective POV, what makes these incidents "infamous"? in whose opinion? what is the objective criteria for inclusion or not? Or is this just the funniest (or most disquieting) moments in the opinion of someone (or a prudish other). Enquiring minds want to know... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Without the "Infamous" modifier in the title, it becomes "moments in Saturday Night Live history" which, again, would be differentiated by one or more editors' take on what the most notable or interesting moments were. It is therefore original research (or synthesis) and, for the most part, unsalvageably unencyclopedic. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Jeannette Jayhawks Football

Jeannette Jayhawks Football (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is not notable. It seems to have been written because this High School team won the WPIAL. It also stinks of weasel words. PGPirate 22:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sigger

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

This is a dictionary definition. Fbdave (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirected (by another user) to Project Chanology. Since these articles largely overlap, sourced information about the group already exists in the other article, and we just went through a massive AfD debate, I don't think going through that again is fruitful. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous (Scientology)

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

Article purports to document the exploits of a valiant collective of hackers who wage DDOS attacks against Scientology websites. A skeptical review of the article's content and given references reveals speculation based on unverifiable sources and anti-Scientology soapboxing. In reality what we have here is a sampling of bored kids from various 4chan-like boards seeking attention for petty campaigns and misrepresenting news reports as evidence of their "full scale war over the interwebs". These claims are not notable in the real world. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 22:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I will succeed to your claims of having some information that is based on speculation and shall remove it.

I did not mean to, and do not attempt to, create anti-Scientology soapboxing. I am trying to create a neutral view of this group so others of whom are curious may see the facts and make their own, intelligent, decision. Seeing as I myself turned to Wikipedia for answers on "Who are these people" in a fair, informative manner. I was shocked and surprised to find nothing! Hence why I am attempting to create this page. I am no more than a beginner at Wikipedia and I do not seek to become an author of Wikipedia pages. With that in mind, please forgive my objective point of view as I do not believe I even noticed it. Kenji000 (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should re-convine on 6-12 to create a page in regards to the entity group known as "Anonymous", until then. I will not add or remove anything from the page that already exists, or if so wished remove it until 6-12 and start over then. Kenji000 (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 15:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Soteira

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

Delete non-notable character with almost no history and quick death. Merge any mention of her into Morlocks (comics) Wryspy (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC) Redirect per BOZ below. Wryspy (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ilampirai manimaran

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

orphaned since Oct 2006, no references, is this person notable? Rtphokie (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Alphacell

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

Seemingly non-notable mobile phone manufacturer, article reads very much like advertising. Couldn't find any sources to give the subject notability. — alex.muller (talk • edits) 21:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

513th Air Control Group

513th Air Control Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete a non-notable group in the air force reserves, unsourced to boot. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Revelation (comics)

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

Delete article about character that barely appeared anywhere, introduced in issue #1 and died in #4. There's barely any information. Any worthwhile content should be merged intoMorlocks (comics) since the character was a Morlock. Wryspy (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC) Redirect per BOZ below. Wryspy (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Mega City (The Matrix)

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

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an repetition of filming facts from the Matrix trilogy, which should be dealt with in the development section of the respective film articles production section. The rest is unsourced speculation and OR, and thus this article should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

PS. You seem to have forgotten to put an AfD tag on the page.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Brethren of Datu Abdillah

Brethren of Datu Abdillah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources are presented that can verify either that this is a real society or even a notable hoax. Disputed prod. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). ChetblongT C 23:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Elite Hockey League

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

nn hockey league with very few direct google hits, only one reliable source found, which isn't the multiple coverage needed in WP:N, prod removed Delete Secret account 20:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, author blanked and requests deletion -- pb30<talk> 03:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Plastic Hall of Fame

Plastic Hall of Fame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable organization. No independent sources given. Google searches return nothing ("plastic hall of fame" babar, "plastic hall of fame" council, "plastic hall of fame" Lahore). Web page is ©2008, "under construction", boasts as "The Most Prestigious Award in Plastic And Petrochemical Industry" - patently untrue. All "hall of famers" and the entire "council" are apparently Pakistanis. A sham. GregorB (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment on this. Yes please, but I would say only the first should be added here (if indeed that is allowed). The other two should probably be nominated separately, perhaps waiting until this AfD is complete, as the company may be a notable company, though the current article is unsourced puffery. Springnuts (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, will do. I'll nominate them separately after this one is closed (no need to rush things). ~a (user • talk • contribs) 00:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Unsalvageably unencyclopedic and entirely promotional article written about a nonnotable organization. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 02:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. I did not find that the nominator gave a good rational for the article deletion in this nomination, nor I find the other deletion rationals convincing, and I would suggest that when nominating an article for AfD in the future, get right to the point, and cite relevant policies to support your rational. For example, if you think this article is original research, explain to us, how is it original research, and what makes you think that way. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 15:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Singapore gay films

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

Non-notable subject. No evidence is supplied to suggest that Singapore is in any way notable for it's output of LGBT cinema, which isn't surprising as the article itself states that "there is to date not a single feature-length film entirely produced by Singaporeans in Singapore belonging to this genre".

The bulk of the article consists of plot summaries to a handfull of loosely connected films, most of them from other countries with only a peripheral Singaporean involvement, and some only having an LGBT sub plot rather than a central theme. The "references" used are mostly just links to IMDb, and the article has seen hardly any development since a prior AfD two years ago. At best this subject deserves only a passing mention in the Cinema of Singapore article, though perhaps the plot summaries can be salvaged and re-used in the articles of the films themselves. PC78 (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

DOD Pedals Pot Codes – Dates

DOD Pedals Pot Codes – Dates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unclear as to how this is truly of encyclopedic value. Subject is when certain components of a discontinued line of guitar pedals were manufactured. DarkAudit (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was keep. John254 00:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Mont Roonui

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

Nothing in the article or the sparse ghits indicate any notability. While a lack of ghosts is interesting, it doesn't appear to be particularly notable Travellingcari (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment I apologize for not noticing that before and have now looked over Wikipedia:GEOG#Geography. I don't see that as an absolute keep but will withdraw this if consensus is that it's an automatic keep. I think that the article needs to assert why it's notable i.e. one of two principal peaks as that isn't apparent in google either. Travellingcari (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
There was a ghost section when I nominated it. Travellingcari (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment I the article creator tried to redirect it just now but obviously the nominator wants a discussion. A mountain of 1300 odd metres is as notable as any -the second highest point on Tahiti, perhaps French Polynesia too-expand it or redirect it. The worst thing possible though is to base notability on google hits of rplaces in the world as obscure as this. Many many places and countries on the web, have got hardly a thing on them. Provinces of Kazakhstan which covers hundreds of thousands of sq km haven't many google hits either. Does this mean that because google doesn;t record them that anything in that land space isn't notable? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 20:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I was the nominator but I was not the one who reverted your redirect. I agree re: relying on google but we have to find something that verified the significance of Thing X and google is often a good starting place. Of course there's also the question of whether Item X is encyclopedic, but that's another story. We'll see where this goes. Travellingcari (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
For the record, it was I who reverted the redirect (which I discovered when I went from this AfD to take a look at the article), as I don't think that redirecting the subject of an active AfD discussion is a good idea. With regard to the article, my opinion is keep per precedent for prominent topographic features (WP:GEOG). Deor (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The problem is at present google seems to be finding a renowned tattoo artist of the same name, a rather shady looking gentleman rather than something encyclopedic about a mountain lol ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 21:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It was based on pure map observation. The map was created by http://gmt.soest.hawaii.edu/, which I believe is a notable source ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 22:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. John254 00:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Polytechnic Institute of Cávado and Ave

Polytechnic Institute of Cávado and Ave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There is nothing in the article or a google search in any language that indicates any notability. I looked at Wikipedia:Notability (schools) since I've heard some schools are automatically notable, but there doesn't appear to be anything about this school that warrants its inclusion here Travellingcari (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC) Neutral: nom withdrawn

and google news, and google scholar. Now we just need someone with Portuguese to assess all these sources ... --Paularblaster (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment fair enough, I agree with the above rationale. Nom withdrawn. Travellingcari (talk) 13:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Pardis_Sabeti

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

Not notable, despite being recipient of university award, she is not a remarkable scientist Dimdamdocdim (talk) 19:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

On one of those two papers, she's the first author, and Lander's the PI (last author), so it's her paper. That's a good publication record & influential paper for a postdoc, but it still seems a bit early. The real point is that she's still in Lander's lab, still a postdoc. So it seems to me that she's up-and-coming but not yet notable. --Lquilter (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
This is all very insightful, but a couple of points. 18 publications by postdoc is quite a strong publication record, especially with lead author on a Nature paper. I don't disagree with the assessment of the EHH method -- your comments here seem sensible -- but there is also the matter of the mainstream media press. --Lquilter (talk) 13:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Lina, I almost never disagree with you, but how is a grant to a postdoc for transition to a faculty position a prestigious grant? If we start that, what about grants to PhD's to go on to a postdoc, and so on down the line.
And I dont see how an award you consider "minor" makes you think her notable?
The actual standard for scientific notability requires at the least being notable for some independent work of one's own, not being given first authorship on a paper on your advisor's project. She has become involved with notable projects led by more distinguished people. That's a very good way to start a career, but it isnt notability. In the rare cases where we've accepted notability for a postdoc, I think it's been because of a notable independent project. But I haven't kept track of them.
But more important, the main question is the relationship of N=2RS to any actual consideration of any regarding encyclopedic suitability. We have normally not accepted that being hailed as anything by a tabloid gives notability, and have consistently held that coverage, no matter how inflated, of non-notable events does not give notability. I'm not at all sure we do this consistently, or that we should be doing it at all. But since it is the custom here, it would be a major change to eliminate or restrict the basic criterion in the guideline for WP:N. What however is the relationship between the basic guideline and the supplementary guidelines? Is meeting either enough? or does it take both? Or does it have to meet the basic and the supplement is just a guide to it? If we really literally mean the basic, then it is incompatible with WP:NOT NEWS and an number of other policies. Given the uncertanity of this, and that the resolution will take a discussion far beyond this article, I'm changing to Weak Delete, meaning I don't think anyone is the least bit in the wrong who thinks otherwise, and that it's a matter of opinion only. DGG (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I hear you, DGG (it's laura not lina, btw). If I did "weak" & "strong" I would probably go with "weak keep", because i am really teetering on the fence here. I wish I knew how two "genius" articles got published in two different sources. They're fairly different articles, although both are "puffy". Anyway, on the specifics, and none of these are strong defenses -- they're all on the fence. (1) The career transition grant from BW is a major grant for a beginning faculty; I think it provides a lot of startup funding for a lab. It's not just for postdoc support, so I think it goes beyond postdoc grants. It's a judgment call though and there are no fixed standards yet. (2) On your point about the interfaces of the notability guideline & the subguidelines, I just don't know, but it seems, to me, that either should be okay. I think the "news" problem will have to get resolved over time -- it shows up a lot in the criminal defendant cases. (3) I think the sum of my comments could be considered a "benefit of the doubt" standard. Given some evidence of notability in several different areas, but not a lot of notability in any one area, I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to keep content. --Lquilter (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 failing WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The Money Masters

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

This is film fails our notability guidelines for films. There are no reliable sources asserting, or supporting notability — the sole "claim" of notability is that the producer asserts that 50,000 copies were sold, which is a diminutive number and does not meet the "widely distributed" requirement in the guidelines. The only sources I can find which cover the subject are either promotional, trivial, or both — complicating the assessment is that there are literally dozens of unrelated products with the same title. I urge deletion of this topic — Wikipedia should not be a promotional vehicle for films. Haemo (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

50,000 doesn't seem very diminutive to me. I'd say distributing to 50,000 people is distributing pretty widely. The video has been distributed globally, not just nationally or even locally. Again, that's pretty wide distribution. Robert Ham (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I would also point out that the notability guidelines for films are not applicable because The Money Masters is not a film; it's a video. Robert Ham (talk) 18:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is reliable and it's very useful for understanding modern economy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.131.17.79 (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

How do you "explain" a film? What kind of explanation are you expecting? Robert Ham (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The fact that there is not a MSM article spoon-feeding you what you think is notable and what is not is also not a compelling argument. And that is the only thing you rely upon in your argument. --David Shankbone 02:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

--The question is: who benefits? Dmitri Schrama, Utrecht, The Netherlands —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.206.190.37 (talk) 21:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


Welcome to Wikipedia. Ekonomics geek2 (talk) 05:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If this forum debates solely the quality of the entry, or the credibility of material presented within "The Money Masters" DVD per se', I cannot take time to discern. If the later, I own the video and several notable people wrote reviews/comments that were on the brochure that came with the DVD. Negatives reviews/comments, weren't included for apparent reasons. The comment carrying the most "weight" was from Milton Friedman to wit: "As you know, I am entirely sympathetic with the objectives of you Monetary Reform Act...You deserve a great deal of credit for carrying through so thoroughly on your own conception...I am impressed by your persistence and attention to detail in your successive revisions..Best Wishes." Some other recommendations: Dr. W. Cleon Skousen, author, "The Naked Capitalist" and "The Naked Communist"; Arun Gandhi, grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, and G. Edward Griffin, author, "The Creature from Jekyl Island, A Second Look at The Federal Reserve". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.182.96 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 4 February 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 keep. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Clay County Fair

Clay County Fair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

google and google news searches return hits, however none seem to assert any notability. Yes, the fair has attracted a number of name performers, but these people have performed all over the place -- nothing apparently special or notable about their appearance at this fair. Article has been orphaned since November 2006 Travellingcari (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep - Passes WP:ORG for notability (over 1,000 hits on google news) & not totally orphaned per links. Could use some tidying for NPOV -- Mitico (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 10:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Unleaded (band)

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

Delete unsigned band claiming winning some nn battle of the band and a redlink award; sourced to its home page and myspace, etc., fails WP:BAND Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete per Carlossuarez46 & WP:BAND. Could not find any independent mention of this band -- Mitico (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep (but rename) - A Google search returns just under 2000 hits. Doesn't winning a competition organised by a major music channel confer some sort of notability? Oh... but I'd rename the article - all the references I could see refer to the band as The Unleaded. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 11:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Tears Of Rage

Tears Of Rage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Planned album that has been pushed back for years, of a band that is falling apart. Recording has not yet begun. There is so little information available, that it is impossible to give any information about it. To be short, it fails WP:CRYSTAL. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Henry's Uptown Bar

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

Claim of notability is that it was regularly visited by Lee Harvey Oswald. That may not be enough for WP:N. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 11:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Todd Speakman

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

Nominated for deletion because this is a hoax biographical article -- Mitico (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well maybe not a hoax for sure, but definately NN & unsourced. Mitico (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Franjo Ladan

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

Contested prod. Player fails WP:BIO as he has never played in a fully professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein (talk) 22:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Also deleted:


List of errors on Portuguese ex-Colonies stamps

List of errors on Portuguese ex-Colonies stamps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nominating this page and all the linked pages; they comprise a list of misprints of stamps from countries that are ex-colonies of Portugal. I can see that someone is putting substantial effort into this, but have trouble seeing how this esoterica is even remotely encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Jfire (talk) 18:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I have tagged all articles listed below with AfD templates. I have no opinion on deletion, though a merge of the various years might not be unwise (Angola 1886 with 1911, 1912, 1914, and 1921, for example). I tagged the articles mainly because, had they been included here but not templated, they may have been improperly deleted. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
List of errors on Portuguese ex-Colonies stamps of Açores 1871/1876 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of errors on Portuguese ex-Colonies stamps of Angola 1886 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of errors on Portuguese ex-Colonies stamps of Angola 1911 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of errors on Portuguese ex-Colonies stamps of Angola 1912 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of errors on Portuguese ex-Colonies stamps of Angola 1914 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of errors on Portuguese ex-Colonies stamps of Angola 1921 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of errors on Portuguese ex-Colonies stamps of Guiné 1902 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of errors on Portuguese ex-Colonies stamps of Guiné 1911 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of errors on Portuguese ex-Colonies stamps of Guiné 1913 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of errors on Portuguese ex-Colonies stamps of India 1871 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of errors on Portuguese ex-Colonies stamps of India 1873 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of errors on Portuguese ex-Colonies stamps of India 1913 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of errors on Portuguese ex-Colonies stamps of Inhambane 1911 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of errors on Portuguese ex-Colonies stamps of Inhambane 1917 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of errors on Portuguese ex-Colonies stamps of Lourenço Marques 1895 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of errors on Portuguese ex-Colonies stamps of Lourenço Marques 1899 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of errors on Portuguese ex-Colonies stamps of Lourenço Marques 1911 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of errors on Portuguese ex-Colonies stamps of Mozambique 1911 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of errors on Portuguese ex-Colonies stamps of Mozambique 1943 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of errors on Portuguese ex-Colonies stamps of Mozambique 1952 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of errors on Portuguese ex-Colonies stamps of Mozambique 1957 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of errors on Portuguese ex-Colonies stamps of Nyassa Company 1901 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of errors on Portuguese ex-Colonies stamps of Nyassa Company 1903 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of errors on Portuguese ex-Colonies stamps of Zambezia 1911 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Delete defines cruft. Totally NN. Doc Strange (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep these need more context, but fundamentally there are lots of encyclopedic value in philatelic and numismatic errors. A quick scan for references shows about 600 hits in Google books for "postage stamp"+errors, including books cited by the Encyclopedia Americana. It's not much more cruft than explanations of esoteric articles of interest only to software engineers, car enthusiasts, American Idol viewers, UFOlogists, or other small field. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and strawman: nobody is nominating Postage stamp error for deletion. Jfire (talk) 20:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it doesn't even matter if someone else has published a listing of errors on Portuguese ex-Colony stamps (which I highly doubt). It's simply not appropriate content for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a stamp catalog. These articles fall victim to both WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and WP:NOT#IINFO, not to mention WP:Overcategorization. Jfire (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
To clarify my argument: I don't doubt that this information is contained in some form in philatelic catalogs. But (a) they wouldn't organize it like this (why "Portuguese ex-Colonies"?), and (b) that doesn't even matter, because, Wikipedia is not a stamp catalog, in the same way it's not a telephone directory or sales catalog. Jfire (talk) 03:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Josh Rosenthal

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

Blatant advertising; the page is written by User:Joshrosenthal. Prod removed by anon without comment; likely Rosenthal when he wasn't logged in. I can't find a trace of press on this guy; while there is a musician and a record exec with this name who might deserve a page, I don't think this fellow does. Chubbles (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete' To be fair - and if true - as an actor training at NIDA and work with Sydney TC is possibly notable but the rest needs huge amount of work! Vultureofbook (talk) 19:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment - there is nothing in WP:BIO that says if someone trained at a prestigious location they are automatically notable. Rather, there are several clear ways to research someone's notability, primarily third party sources that can be cited in regards to said person. I think this article clearly fails the primary notability guidelines in that there appears to be no reliable independant sources for it. Anything could make someone "possibly notable" but the point of AfD discussions is to look for facts relating to that notability, not voting keep because they may be notable. This may have come off harsh, but I'm just trying to be direct and I obviously assumed your vote was in good faith. - Gwynand (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah just had a google search on him and have changed my vote! Vultureofbook (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Unopposed

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

This was an article that was originally listed as CsD. I feel that it has a little bit too much credibility to deleted it arbitrarily without an AfD. We have here another local band with questionable notability and a member lineup that is chronically unstable. Trusilver 18:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


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

Trusilver told me I could post here. Sorry I responded late... I had no access to the net. Ya know what, I don't get it. I just think that everyone is taking wiki a little far on the standards. I may be alone on that, but from my understanding and interaction with others it doesn't to be the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unopposed98 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

E. Bernard Jordan

E. Bernard Jordan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

DELETE. NN and unsourced - unless being a fraud would give him some notability. Fails WP:BIO. EndlessDan 17:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 12:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Somethings Gotta Give (club)

Somethings Gotta Give (club) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable quarterly club night; trivial references (mere mentions or "night out"-type listings). Fails WP:NOTE. Precious Roy (talk) 17:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was speedily deleted under WP:CSD#A7 as a website with no assertion of importance or significance. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Diversity Trainer Network (service)

Diversity Trainer Network (service) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Originally tagged for speedy as spam, removed by author. Even in the edited form, it still looks like spam. No sources to show notability. DarkAudit (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The Diversity Trainer Network is an organization for diversity professionals. As such, it serves an important role in supporting the cultural diversity profession. The article described the organization, its purpose, and its importance as an education and training entity.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sources added to establish notability.--PeaceNT (talk) 03:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yaw-Yan

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

Not Notable, unsourced statements for 9 months, now removed, not claim of notability & one source about a club opening, in addition still has a some what advertorial tone even after basic clean-up. Nate1481( t/c) 16:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. Okay, I've added the refs that I feel appropriate (as these tournaments are shown on TV). As I said earlier it only asserts that Yaw-yan is notable and practiced in the Phils.--Lenticel (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Vasquez family massacre

Vasquez family massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nothing but a plot summary for a soap opera. DarkAudit (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Benjamin Storm Keough

Benjamin Storm Keough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Declined speedy. Only assertion of notability is relation to Lisa Marie Presley. DarkAudit (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Keep per consensus and WP:MUSIC. (non-admin closure) RMHED (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Return (band)

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

Non notable. Orphaned for nearly 2 years. No other sources but their home site. Simple searches yield nothing. Metal Head (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Institute of bio-it

Institute of bio-it (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non notable organization, the article was tagged for speedy deletion for copyvio , then proposed for deletion, the author has removed the tag. There is a conflict of interest too. Cenarium (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - it wasn't the repeated PROD removal I was judging; it was the repeated PROD removal with no comment on the discussion page or edit summary.-- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 09:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 spam. Pegasus «C¦T» 05:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

BusinessLine

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

Speedy tag removed by author. No assertion of notability, only that it exists. Mere existence is not enough. DarkAudit (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

--Pgagnon999 (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, self-promoting spam. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Mike Dooley

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

Speedy tag for spam removed by author. No secondary independent sources to show notability. DarkAudit (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Diego Lofino

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

Speedy tag for nonsense removed by author. It's still nonsense. DarkAudit (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was speedy close. The nominator has gone ahead and done the merge, so there is nothing more for the AfD to accomplish at this point. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Butch Coolidge

Butch Coolidge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

George W. Bush (band)

George W. Bush (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Prodder believes the band is a hoax and has done some research to try and prove the claims in the article. Procedural nomination. UsaSatsui (talk) 15:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

National Lampoon's Adam & Eve

AfDs for this article:
National Lampoon's Adam & Eve (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable film. Appears to be direct-to-video. Prod tag removed by author. Recommend Delete. Dchall1 (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Heartbeat(Scouting for girls song)

Heartbeat(Scouting for girls song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This individual song does not meet WP:MUSIC for individual songs, even if by a notable musical group. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was merged & redirected to List of Pulp Fiction characters#Jules Winnfield --Stormie (talk) 03:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Jules Winnfield

Jules Winnfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Merge to currently nonexistent List of Pulp Fiction characters per discussion here.--The Dominator (talk) 15:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge as above. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

LiWA Living Web Archives (Research Project)

LiWA Living Web Archives (Research Project) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete as per WP:OR. This work is not published yet and still in developing/progressing phase. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 15:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The project will only launch next week. I've amended the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulaudondek2 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


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

The project started - also, the project website is live. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulaudondek2 (talk • contribs) 09:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Several of the deletion arguments appear to me spurious; original research does not apply here, and there is no necessity for biographical articles for academics. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Luciano Canepari

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

Delete as per WP:OR and WP:BIO. It seems that people are getting interested to promote their research on WP which is really unfortunate. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 15:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I do intend promote my teacher'e research and it isn't unfortunate at all, since it only let ideas to travel faster; this is a particular subject where instead too often news travels very slowly. -- gfl87

(Note: e-mail address removed) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 15:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment. Thanks for your comment. With due respect to your work, I have to say that Wikipedia doesn't support Original Research and such article is considered as candidate for deletion. Please have a look at this page - WP:OR. Cheers. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 15:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
My apologies -- I only looked at the history for this capitalization, not for any other capitalizations.--Fabrictramp (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment - Well it's a clear case of WP:OR violation and creator himself also confessed. And there is no harm to go for AfD if it really fails on one of the main three core policies. Cheers. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 15:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment on comment: actually the creator did not "confess" that this was original research; he stated that his aim was to make someone else's research more readily available. This is the very opposite of WP:OR. Since we're dealing with an academic WP:PROF is the touchstone, not WP:BIO. These two facts mean that the initial rationale given for deletion ("per WP:OR and WP:BIO") is not really applicable, but we might still consider whether the few secondary discussions of this research that have been found indicate that this professor is notable under WP:PROF. On that point I am still not offering an opinion, but I am increasingly concerned at the looseness with which short-hand references to quite detailed policies and guidelines are bandied about in AfD discussions. --Paularblaster (talk) 12:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
And some of his earlier books were reviewed in the Journal of the International Phonetic Association in the late 1980s or early 1990s. There were some negative comments toward his phonetic notation (e.g., too many hard-to-distinguish-between consonant symbols) and some positive ones (e.g., more detailed vowel transcription is useful). – ishwar  (speak) 06:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
comment: still not giving an opinion on this article, but just commenting that I think with an academic it would be more useful to concentrating on WP:PROF than on WP:BIO. --Paularblaster (talk) 07:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
It's an article about a person, so we have to worry about WP:BIO. It's not like someone being a professor gives us carte blanche to forget about the libel laws and the rules about sourcing.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
comment: I only started the article beginning from what someone wrote in the respective italian article; then the actual content is very very poor: how can you find it laudatory? If you can understand Italian, let's read the italian article: that could be laudatory... Any attempt to correct my English grammar is very kindly accepted!

Moreover if you think it's better to get it as a WP:PROF than as a WP:BIO, let's change the cathegory. I don't think to delete the article is a good idea, since it somehow gives some more about the subject & allows everyone to discover something new otherwise a little more difficult to find. I think it's a question of cultural openness. Indeed if someone wants to delete and redo better that page, feel free to do. -- Gfl87 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gfl87 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Spartaz Humbug! 20:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Chris Cotter

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

Delete as per WP:BIO. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 15:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You better go and debate in appropriate place. You may notice that I have already requested admins to remove this nomination as it was tagged twice. Your post clearly shows your intention to post a keep comment on my nominations which is really unfortunate as we are here for the betterment of Wikipedia not for involving in text-war. Cheers. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 15:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The dual notification and lack of link here has been fixed. [35]Pedro :  Chat  15:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 into X&Y. Tikiwont (talk) 10:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

What If (Coldplay song)

What If (Coldplay song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unrefferenced article on a song. No indication of notability. Rtphokie (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete/Question - Has this song charted, anywhere? I can't find any evidence of such. It was released as a single, but I don't really see significant coverage for the song, just a one-sentence mention in articles about the album. So, without charting (assuming that's true) and no real coverage, I'd say delete per WP:MUSIC.Gwynand (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Cotter. This is a duplicate nom. Spartaz Humbug! 20:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Chris Cotter

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

Article about a non notable person. NYYankee2684 (talk) 14:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 into Live 2003. Tikiwont (talk) 10:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Moses (song)

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

Unreferenced article about a song, No indication of notability. No mention of chart performance, use in other media (film, TV, etc), or any awards. Rtphokie (talk) 14:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Parachutes (album). Tikiwont (talk) 10:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

We Never Change (Coldplay song)

We Never Change (Coldplay song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced orphaned article on a song. No indication of notability. Rtphokie (talk) 14:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tikiwont (talk) 10:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ladder to the Sun

Ladder to the Sun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced 2 sentence article on a song. No indication of notability. Rtphokie (talk) 14:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete This is based on the lack of cited secondary sources to establish notability. I'm not persuaded that this should form a precedent for future aviation incidents and presence of secondary sources should be a sufficient test for them. Spartaz Humbug! 20:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

AirAsia Flight 104

AirAsia Flight 104 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A non-notable aviation incident, it's not an uncommon occurrence for an aircraft to skid off a runway. No deaths occurred. No long lasting repercussions for the aviation industry. Any news hits don't discuss the incident in such a way to give it long-lasting notability within WP guidelines. Russavia (talk) 14:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment The first part of the reasoning is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS reasoning. The second part, QF1 is a notable accident as it has been covered in depth by news media years after the incident and did have ramifications for the airline, such as the insistance on calling the accident an 'incident', spending millions of dollars repairing an aircraft which should have all rights been written off but not done so in order to protect their "no airframe loss" record in the jet era, having the aircraft sent to China to have repairs done, CASA blaming Qantas for the accident, etc, etc. All in all, QF1 is a very notable accident due to long-term media and literatury coverage. AirAsia Flight 104, however, sources which give it notability in context of the WP:AVIATION accident task force guidelines, and WP policies, can't be found. --Russavia (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment My intention was not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it was that there was a precedence based on the argument of "airplane over shooting and no injuries" was a kind of a standard for the nom. My intention was more on the idea of common outcomes from AfD where if there is a common outcome (a Persuasive precedent)...then why not? As for one article being more notable then another, my opinion was that this was still an aircraft accident and see no issue with keeping it, not that it was any more notable then any other article. --Pmedema (talk) 15:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Cant due to license incompatibility Corpx (talk) 03:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Swallowed In The Sea

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

Unreferenced one line article on a song, no indication of notability. Rtphokie (talk) 14:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Up and go

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

Delete. Fails at WP:NOTE and WP:MUSIC as well. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 14:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I would rather tag it for Speedy Deletion! A bad formed in Summer 2006 with no source that proves its notability can easily be a candidate for speedy deletion. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 15:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
And could you please show me the so called hard work in this article ? -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 15:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Delete Should have been a db-band. Does not meet WP:N--Pmedema (talk) 16:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jazzin' for Blue Jean and move the citation there. Tikiwont (talk) 10:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Jazzin For Blue Jean

Jazzin For Blue Jean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete as it fails at WP:Verifiability. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 14:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Could you please stop biting me? Concentrate on basic policies of WP. Show me a single source that verifies its claim. I will withdraw my nomination. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 15:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
"For easily the coolest supplement found here – or anywhere, for that matter – we get Jazzin’ for Blue Jean, the full-length version of the “Blue Jean” video. " [36] Catchpole (talk) 15:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I have added this citation in the article. In addition, I created reference section made some copy-edit. And last but not the least - I am Withdrawing my nomination. Cheers. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 16:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete Jazzin For Blue Jean is not the title of an extended version of Blue Jean by David Bowie, it is the name given to a video Jazzin' for Blue Jean which contains the song Blue Jean. 82.11.54.83 (talk) 01:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 12:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

MailList Controller

MailList Controller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • How do you know? Have you tested it and are you familiar with this software? MM1973 (talk)
  • Comment: I read the article. What it said when I wrote this response was, MailList Controller sends personalized email messages to a group of recipients and includes functions for subscription management. It works like an ordinary mail client and requires a legimate email account to send newsletters to subscribers. This has no third party references to show notability, and doesn't say that it does anything you wouldn't expect an email list manager to do. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply: I guess "it does not more than you expect" (based on the description) would match all software products listed here. I tried to write the article from a neutral point of view. Articles in Category:Windows_software are more like a listing. Should I add links to third party software sites as reference? e.g. c|net download.com. Btw. I am bit shocked about your response and the whole discussion. After I reviewed the other articles in this category I thought that my article is not be so bad that it would require deletion. MM1973 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The reason for this discussion is the notability of the software, not the way it was written. And you are free to nominate other articles you feel do not meet those criteria. Good sources to list are independent, reliable sources, that are not listings. So C|net editorial review would be a good source, but the description on C|net wouldn't be, as it is not independent. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply Type in MailList Controller in the google search and you'll get 100.000 hits ... Should I move it to the stubs, so that I can improve it later - maybe this would be a good solution at this point? I think there is no reason to delete the article completely.
  • It is not uncommon for software solutions to have large numbers of ghits, yet some might see it as a indication of notability in itself. To be comepltely sure, just fish out some of the aforementioned independent reliable sources. I didn't find any proper sources in the first three pages, but there are plenty of results to look into. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply: Thank you Ihcoyc, I will rewrite this part. MM1973 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Zhang Shu-Hao

Zhang Shu-Hao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This actor has been awarded the "Best Actor" "Golden Bell Award" in 2007. This award does not seem like a very important one, but is an award all the same. 8 Ghits for "Zhang Shu-Hao". All in all, I don't think this actor meets WP:BIO. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC) withdrawn. It seems notability has been established within reason. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 07:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 12:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Wanhoop

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

Delete as fails WP:NOTE and WP:MUSIC. Provided references are also very poor. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 14:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. John254 00:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Alyson hunter

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

Delete as doesn't meet WP:BIO. Google search provides a clear idea that this person is not notable at all. Fails at WP:NOTE too. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 14:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment - WP:BITE is a behavioral guideline, not a policy. Yes, it is a good guideline, but has no bearing in regards to an AFD vote (although it's fine to be noted). Is your keep vote based only on BITE?Gwynand (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - With due respect to Catchpole's effort for keeping some articles that lacks on many major policies of WP, I want to say, of course WP:BITE is to encourage newcomers but that doesn't mean we'll start keeping low profiles articles. Newcomer may request for an article instead of creating one that doesn't meet WP core policies. And it is really unfortunate to receive your bites at almost each of my nominations in the name of supporting newcomers. Cheers. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 15:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Further Speedy deleting good faith articles within minutes is contray to WP:BITE. Nominating for AfD is not. Also, per Gwynand, could you please elaborate on your Keep rationale? Pedro :  Chat  15:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Now described purely as an artist. Johnbod (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The lead does not say she invented it (though she may have done - that is not clear in the ref, so is not claimed), only that she employed it. The ref says that she used it. "Employ" is a synonym for "use" simply on stylistic grounds and to minimise use of the original on copyvio grounds. Her use of the technique is already cited in the main text, which the lead summarises. The lead has now been ref'd as well. Tyrenius (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 01:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Northwood High School (Saltville, Virginia)

Northwood High School (Saltville, Virginia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Stub of non-notable school. The references provided don't demonstrate notability. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:20, 29 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Some editors have suggested that, but no, it hasn't been decided. The argument of all inclusion isn't a "just because" argument, but rather related to the notion that all highschools in fact meet wikipedia's threshold of notability, not that they should be the exception to the rule. I didn't strike out your vote, but it should technically be based on actual policy or reason.Gwynand (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. However, the article has meanwhile been moved to Oroluk Island and then replaced with completely different content including a different map and might be legit. So I'll delete and then restore the latest version only. Tikiwont (talk) 10:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Frolik Island

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

Obviously a hoax. The article claims that Frolik Island is an island of the Oroluk Atoll (Fed. States of Micronesia). There are in fact articles in other Wikipedias that claim the same (de, pl, es, ru, fr) but it seems that all these articles were written by the same author. The most detailled of these articles is the one in pl WP: pl:Frolik. There you can find a map of the Oroluk Atoll indicating the alleged precise position of Frolik Island. If you consult Google Earth, you will find a sort of a sand bank or reef there with roughly the same NE/SW orientation as the alleged island on the map but without any vegetation (and of course with no settlements at all). The whole Oroluk atoll has a population of 8 or 10 inhabitants which doesn't match with the almost 100 that are supposed to live on Frolik Island alone. Moreover, the map of the alleged Frolik Island matches perfectly with a mirrorred map of Nanumea Island in Tuvalu, several hundred kilometers away from Oroluk (see the comparison of the images on Talk:Frolik Island. Currently, there is an AfD discussion on de WP stating all these indications for a hoax. pl WP had already an AfD discussion which ended in keep; I suppose the main argument there was the reference of the Statistical Handbook of Micronesia, but on de WP some were supposing that the image of a page from that handbook which is displayed on the talk page of the polish article has been faked, too. --Proofreader (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The German article has been deleted today, the article in pl WP has been changed into a redirect to the Oroluk Atoll. There are varying opinions in de WP whether the author deliberately faked the map and the census entry, or whether he just used these sources in good faith; but the probability that these sources provide genuine and accurate information seems to be very low, to put it mildly. And as to the other Wikipedias I want to second Bart; anyone who speaks Spanish, Russian or French should inform these Wikipedias. --Proofreader (talk) 13:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lack of evidence for notability. --PeaceNT (talk) 21:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

WWE Byte This!

WWE Byte This! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - fails WP:WEB and WP:NOT#INTERNET. No independent reliable sources attest to the notability of the webcast. Prod disputed with the claim that notable things happened on the webcast, which whether that's true or not there need to be reliable third-party sources. Otto4711 (talk) 13:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  • If it was so significant then there should be reliable sourcesd that discuss it. Are there? No? Oh. The fact that it may return is irrelevant. There still need to be reliable sources. Otto4711 (talk) 02:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, on the subject of reliable sources for a pro-wrestling article, please be objective and give your input on that part of the discussion that you skipped over.96.233.64.12 (talk) 07:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)RedSoxFan3458


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

The result was keep. --PeaceNT (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Stavangerrenaissance

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

Sounds madeup or a hoax, can't find anything via Google on this cultural period. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 13:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Se norwegian wikipedia, and search for Stavangerrenessansen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hengre (talk • contribs) 13:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

See also: http://www.mander-organs.com/portfolio/stavanger.html --Hengre (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; action to be taken by others. JERRY talk contribs 05:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Cartilagebaroque

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

No references to prove notability or, in fact, existance. Zero return for google hits suggests WP:HOAX JD554 (talk) 13:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not a hoax, search for bruskbarokk and you will get several pages on norwegian. I think that I would know this better than you! --Hengre (talk) 13:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If you know better than me then you can edit the article to add verifiable references that prove notability to show it should stay. --JD554 (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks - I must have failed to save my edit, because I thought I had made other changes, which I have now done, mainly splitting "Cartilagebaroque" into two words. JohnCD (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the concerns were resolved. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Girls in Training

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

Fails WP:NOTABILITY. The only link is it's own site. There are many church groups out there, this is not a notable one. This has also been orphaned for almost 2 years. Undeath (talk) 13:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't being clear; I should have said that by improving the article, it would demonstrate notability. I've done some work on it, including:
  • adding more information
  • wikifying it, so that it is not a dead-end
  • adding a references section, including a link to the topic's article in The Canadian Encyclopedia
  • linking to the article from other pages that already referenced the subject, so that it is no longer orphaned
  • adding further external links
Hoping that enough has been done to take another look. Mlaffs (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Pegasus «C¦T» 13:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Map of poland

Map of poland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not Commons - we are encyclopedia, not a gallery -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Boothe

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

Possible hoax future video game. No references that substantiate the existence of the game or any supposed "public outcry". Googling combinations of Boothe, game, and assassination, gets no relevant results, googling "Murphy Games" gets no relevant results. And anyway, WP not a crystal ball. Delete Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 11:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Morbuzakh

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

Another contested prod Original research essay about a non-notable fictional plant monster. No real world context and all sources are primary. Ridernyc (talk) 05:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 11:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JERRY talk contribs 04:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Rhotuka

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

Non-notable objects in the fictional bionicle universe. There is some minor real world context here but it's all original research that really should be in the bionicle article if anyone ever decides to rewrite all this from areal world perspective of these beiong a collectible toy line. Ridernyc (talk) 05:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 11:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 03:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

L. Ron Hubbard Classic Lectures

L. Ron Hubbard Classic Lectures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I made a Good faith attempt to try to find any secondary sources that even mention "L. Ron Hubbard" and "Classic Lectures". I looked in 2 different news archives, and Google Books, and found nothing. Even with a regular Google search, I'm only seeing 344 hits, some of which are copies of Wikipedia. The majority of the other hits are to Church of Scientology affiliated websites of one sort or another. After this searching, I have not been able to find any coverage whatsoever in any secondary sources that discuss the subject of this article. The only source cited in the article itself at present is to what seems to be an advertisement for the works sold by the Church of Scientology's Golden Era Productions. (The link itself is inaccessible at the moment.) Cirt (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  1. I dispute your assertion that everything written by Hubbard is notable, as do other editors, above. Cirt (talk) 04:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    Golly. That is pretty final. I just made an argument for keep - no big deal. --JustaHulk (talk) 05:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. No, I do not have any other open AfDs. Cirt (talk) 04:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks. --JustaHulk (talk) 05:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    FYI in the future please see either WP:SCN's talk page, or WP:SCN/AFD. I usually try to remember to give due notice in both places. Cirt (talk) 05:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    Thank you, sir. --JustaHulk (talk) 05:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
You have not said why. Why do you think this article satisfies WP:NOTE? The Closing Admin usually is supposed to ignore comments which simply read like a "vote"... Cirt (talk) 06:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I see a why. --JustaHulk (talk) 03:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete. The arguments for deletion, concerning a failure to establish notability through the provision of reliable sources, are clear in this discussion: such sources are not provided. Anthøny 21:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thomas O'Grady

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

Already deleted once and again created. Nominating it for Deletion as it looks like a political add. It fails at WP:BIO as well. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 10:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 into Minor characters in CSI: Miami, taking into account related and preceding AfD nominations Tikiwont (talk) 09:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

John Hagen

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

Once again, minor recurring character on CSI: Miami who is now dead on the show. Article is only a synopsis of major plot lines he was involved in. Fails WP:FICTION. Redfarmer (talk) 09:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Duetwo

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

This article was tagged for speedy. A general check reveals some notability of the duo so whilst article needs attention it appears this article could meet WP:N. Views are sought from interested music/Japanese editors. --VS talk 09:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Weak Keep. Googling suggests a degree of notability, however, further referencing would assist the resolution of this matter. WWGB (talk) 10:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlos Elizalde

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 into Minor characters in CSI: Miami, taking into account related and preceding AfD nominations Tikiwont (talk) 09:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Marisol Delko

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

Non-notable recurring character in CSI: Miami. Appeared sporadically for one season as a love interest to Horatio who was killed off immediately after they were married, so little to no chance she'll ever be back. Fails WP:FICTION. Redfarmer (talk) 09:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to minor characters per what just occurred with Peyton Driscoll Travellingcari (talk) 12:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Merge and redirect as happened with/is happening with Michael Keppler.Red Fiona (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Mud Bite

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

Article does not assert notability -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 09:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Bango (cannabis)

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

Article makes no claims of notability.-- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 09:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 into Minor characters in CSI: Miami, taking into account related and preceding AfD nominations Tikiwont (talk) 09:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Maxine Valera

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

Non-notable recurring character on CSI: Miami. Although she has been on the show for years, the article admits there is little to know about her and is basically just a recap of major plot lines she's been involved in. Fails WP: FICTION. Redfarmer (talk) 09:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)



The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 into Minor characters in CSI: Miami, taking into account related and preceding AfD nominations Tikiwont (talk) 09:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Peter Elliott (CSI: Miami)

Peter Elliott (CSI: Miami) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable recurring character on CSI: Miami. Little chance to be expanded beyond current form, which is just a recap of his appearances on the show. Fails WP:FICTION. Redfarmer (talk) 09:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Paris Cowan-Hall

Paris Cowan-Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Player has not made an appearance in a professional football league Jimbo[online] 09:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Minor characters in CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. Tikiwont (talk) 11:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Michael Keppler

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

Recurring character on CSI: Crime Scene Investigation for four episodes while William Petersen was gone. Does not meet WP:FICT and probably never will since his character was killed off in his final appearance. Redfarmer (talk) 10:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redfarmer (talk) 11:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I would personally prefer someone merged and redirected the thing to CSI:_Crime_Scene_Investigation#Past main characters --Sin Harvest (talk) 12:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
He's not a past main character, though. He appeared in four episodes of the show. The characters in that section were regulars on the show spanning multiple seasons. Redfarmer (talk) 12:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment He did get a major character arc in those four episodes, and CSI:_Crime_Scene_Investigation#Past main characters would seem to be the best place for him. Or, maybe, having read the page, expand the section under notable guest stars so the section for Keppler contains the useful information for the characterRed Fiona (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
That's against the current consensus of the major contributors on what should be on that page. The page at one time became overly messy because every recurring character, which CSI has a lot of, were listed on the main page. Redfarmer (talk) 22:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
He's a bit of an awkward character because he's not major enough to have his own article, but he's a little too major for just a two line, 'was in episodes X, and was played by Liev Schreiber'.Red Fiona (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect to Minor_characters_in_CSI:_Crime_Scene_Investigation then. He really would not fit with the characters on the main page. Redfarmer (talk) 00:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Minor characters in CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. It would be great to get rid of the "Guest stars" section from the main article, merging it (with Keppler) into Minor characters would be perfect.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 19:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redfarmer (talk) 09:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Minor characters in CSI: Crime Scene Investigation seems like a good idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sin Harvest (talk • contribs) 11:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to minor characters per Peyton Driscoll. Good idea, User:Redfarmer to try and have the same standards for the minors across all three CSIs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by travellingcari (talk • contribs) 12:58, 29 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. Fram (talk) 13:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Evangelicals for National Security Through International Cooperation

Evangelicals for National Security Through International Cooperation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article was posted for speedy deletion as being about a company, corporation, organization, or group that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Article does not appear to meet verifiability guidelines --VS talk 09:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment Those references make no mention of 'Evangelicals for National Security Through International Cooperation'. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Nevermind; I was looking at the reflist, not the reflinks imbedded in the article. I also see that the two reflist articles and ENSTIC were authored by the same person. The imbedded references seem to point to the National Association of Evangelicals not the ENSTIC. Delete (possibly merging some information with NAE) until some concrete mention of ENSTIC turns up.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 00:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 13:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

King & Wood

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

It does not meet WP:CORP guidelines. It has been speedy deleted twice, so I bring it up here for good. It has now some sources, they still do not meet the guidelines. The link to CNN interview of Art of Life is a trivial mentioning of the company. Dekisugi (talk) 08:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.62.138.90 (talk) 04:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I reverted this keep vote from a user because it broke the template, but for what it's worth, that vote was their only contribution. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

List of sports similar to baseball

List of sports similar to baseball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced list of things someone thinks are related to some other thing, also mixes real and fictioonal. WP:NOT#INFO. Guy (Help!) 08:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ashfield (webcomic)

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

This article was originally submitted for CSD. There's enough information and sources that I was uncomfortable deleting it without an AfD. A search of the substantial number of Ghits I found gave me a lot of background information but no assertion of notability. Trusilver 07:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

List of Emacs commands

List of Emacs commands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT#MANUAL. A handful commands of thousands. Contested prod. SaberExcalibur! 07:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Considerable efforts have been spent on rewriting the article to make it less biased; unfortunately, the issue raised by the AfD nominator – non-notability – has not been addressed, i.e no evidence was given by "keep" voters to establish the notability of the subject. External links existing in the article are either primary or closely affiliated websites. --PeaceNT (talk) 21:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Plug board (internet)

Plug board (internet) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Concerns have been raised via e-mail to the Foundation that the subject of this article may not concern a notable subject and that it constitutes an advertisement. Please remember to give justification and not just a "vote". Thanks! ~Kylu (u|t) 06:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

My Name Is Khan

My Name Is Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Future plans, see WP:CRYSTAL. Shirahadasha (talk) 06:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Redirected to newly-created category Category:Scholars and leaders of nonviolence, or nonviolent resistance. Added this category to appropriate entries that were on this list. JERRY talk contribs 00:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

List of nonviolence scholars and leaders

List of nonviolence scholars and leaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

As is, with only wikilinks and a couple sections, this would be much better as a category. Mr.Z-man 06:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. John254 01:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Holistic Information Security Practitioner

Holistic Information Security Practitioner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

NN security certification, with no references, with one press release press hit in the entire NEWS.GOOGLE.COM archive --- "certification" in this case provided by an NN security consultancy in Georgia. --- tqbf 05:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. -Djsasso (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Arto Tukio

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

not notable, no sources, very little editing activity, very few mainspace pages link to it Croctotheface (talk) 05:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Even if the subject is notable, the article still has the other issues I raised. Unless this AfD inspires someone to source and expand it, this will be a one line article forever that serves no informative purpose. Croctotheface (talk) 06:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
It is true that the issue of no references remains. I'm confident that as this athlete is a premier league player that sources will be available. Trouble is they are most likely to be found in the media of Finland. Much easier for us here if the athlete is in an English language country. The subject is no less notable for being where he is though. If you'd put up a Canadian premier league ice hockey player the refs would be on the article by now. The five days for an AfD to run its course doesn't give a lot of time to find suitable WP:RS in these cases, but it's obvious to me the athlete is notable even without the refs being there yet. Perhaps a Wikipedia editor from Finland can cite local sources? The problem therein being unless they see this AfD in the five day period, how do they know about it? Sting au Buzz Me... 07:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, that raises my other concerns: the article has been here since August 2006 with no improvement or expansion. Few mainspace articles link to it. There have been 17+ months for some editor to come along and introduce a SINGLE source of which this person is the subject, and it hasn't happened. So, really, it's not as if the article was created today and I nominated it for deletion, leaving only five days to find a source. There has never been a source. I also want to point out that the "major professional league" mention in WP:BIO is just one of a set of criteria that suggest that the subject might be significant enough to have an article. Regarding these criteria, the guideline takes care to say that "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Considering that the only argument in favor of having this article is that the subject of it meets one of those criteria, it seems to me to be a strong case for deletion. Croctotheface (talk) 08:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
You should note, too, the Finish version of the article quotes sources, so I agree that sources do indeed exist. Redfarmer (talk) 09:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Anyone speak Finnish in order to find the right references?Red Fiona (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 16:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Schizodactyly

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

article is nothing more than a dictionary definition and ghits are more of the same Travellingcari (talk) 05:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JERRY talk contribs 01:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Rosary of the Unborn

Rosary of the Unborn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This has been speedy deleted three times now. This creation was a contested prod. I'm going to remain neutral as to this AfD. I'm not convinced this prayer or chain of beads or whatever is notable enough for an encyclopedia article. I just think it needs discussion.

  1. There is an actual product, the Rosary of the Unborn (TM) sold at [50]. I'm not sure if this article is supposed to be referring to that product or not.
  2. It appears to be common to say a prayer for the "unborn". Ghits at [51]. I'm not sure if it's a specific prayer or if it's just a common practice to pray to end abortion or what. The number of GHits is rather small, suggesting this isn't notable.

eaolson (talk) 04:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

*DeleteThere does not seem to be enough information to merge with Rosary, it does not appear to be advertising per sources, but it seems to be very minor & probably not worthy of mention, but that isn't my decision. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 05:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the article, provided sourcing and made into what I think, is a workable stub - Keep. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Adding: also google news, where the three stories are all specifically about this devotion. And 1 hit on google scholar books that I've just added as a source to the article. --Paularblaster (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Per Andrew c above, the book reference you added just seems to be talking about the rosary as a general prayer said for a reason, not a particular and specific thing. People say rosaries for all sorts of reasons, but each one doesn't need an article. eaolson (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

— 76.98.248.227 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - 14:10, 29 January 2008 Orangemike deleted "Global Community One World Unity Army" ‎(CSD A1: Very short article providing little or no context) - Non admin close. --Onorem♠Dil 14:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC))

Global Community One World Unity Army

Global Community One World Unity Army (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No idea what this article refers to. Prod tag expired but modified twice. Possible CSD candidate. Dchall1 (talk) 04:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hut 8.5 07:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Kelly Taylor (actress)

Kelly Taylor (actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Autobiographical article about a nonnotable actress to promote themselves on Wikipedia. User originally replaced disambiguation page with their own article, but it was moved to its current position, where the same user has been, along with a blocked puppetmaster, one of the only contributers. No notable roles and nothing in article asserts any other notability. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Just because other editors cleaned up the article doesn't necessarily mean that they endorse it or its contents. I once created a page on a punk rock band because one of their albums had been listed at AfD (general consensus is that if a band is notable, then so are their albums) -- and personally, I'd rather stick a knife in my ear than listen to punk rock. I'm sure that your comments are in good faith; however, I would suggest you read WP:N first, as it clearly delineates the criteria for notability, which this actress seems to fail. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 12:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • L.L.King is a publicist. L.L.King has many clients. I am not L.L.King. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Hiring a publicist to write an article for you is a violation of WP:MEAT. It is also a (likely) violation of WP:AUTO and WP:NPOV. I would therefore propose that this article (and all others written by King as publicity pieces) be deleted under that critiera. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Living in the real world, actors have publicists. L.L.King was not directed to write an article about me for Wikipedia, nor to my knowledge was he instructed to write about anyone or anything here on Wikipedia. No actor has the time to micro-manage the work of others, and I only became aware of last month's events after receiving numerous emails telling me. Making any claim that King was directed by me to target Wikipedia, is an incorrect allegation. Being in the real world, he was simply doing his job. He was not instructed how or where to do it. That he or his employees decided to edit on Wikipedia was their own choice. That argument has been settled. Coming back to it time after time after time after time is beating a horse long dead. I concur with the nominating editor that King edits be scutinized carefully and that such edits themselves be considered for removal if found untrue, unsupported, or in any way damaging to Wikipedia. I disagree that an entire article about anyone or anything should entirely be removed simply because of inappropriate edits. If removing an entire article simply because of inappropriate edits were to be policy, Wikipedia would be a very empty place. Judge the edits on thir own merits... as certainly, and despite WP:NPOV and WP:COI, if an editor did not have some sort of interest in an article, they would not feel inclined to make it better. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The article about actress Taylor may indeed fail WP:N. Let that be the determinating factor here. All I ask is that editors review the history and not take the nominator's repeated misdirections as fact. In the nomination, the nominator makes the blatantly incorrect and misleading statement that Kelly Taylor was "along with a blocked puppetmaster, one of the only contributers. The article's history shows many other editors have made significant contributions. The nominator made misleading statements to imply that the article currently in AfD was entirely autobiographical in nature and written by actress Taylor. Article history shows that not only has Taylor ignored this article for over 9 months, it has been quite thourougly re-written by others not associated with Taylor. The nominator has a well demonstrated habit of first de-constructing an article to make it non-notable (as was done in this case), and then nominating the article for deletion for being non-notable. All the nominator need have done was place the original article in Afd as being non-notable and then step back. If the AfD succeeds or fails, fine... there was no need for this continued habit of mis-direction and half truths. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I concur that the mentioned editor is being misleading in his comments. Additionally, that someone was a sockpuppet/meatpuppet does not mean all of their articles should be deleted. CC knows this is not the same person and it has already been addressed. I have no idea why it needed to be brought up here. — BQZip01 — talk 03:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Since my name was mentioned above, I would like to clarify for the record that I did not create the original version of this article, nor did I approve of its contents; I merely moved it here from Kellytaylor777's inappropriate edit to the dab page, as mentioned in the AfD nomination. At the time, the article was a straight publicity piece, and I immediately tagged it as such. Later, the worst neutrality violations were cleaned up (by myself and others), but the notability issue remains: at least according to Google, the subject of the article has received virtually no independent coverage in reliable sources, and does not otherwise appear to satisfy the criteria in WP:BIO#Entertainers. Unless someone can address those concerns in the very near future, I can't see any strong reason to keep the article. Hqb (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I apologize that I misunderstood your part in the article in question. I mentioned you and the others who had improved the article only to refute a blatant allegation that the article was edited only by Kelly Taylor and sockpuppets. I agree that if found non-notable by consensus that the article should be removed, but disagree with de-constructing an article to make it non-notable prior to nominating it as non-notable, or in making false statements in order to sway support.. as both these methods can be themselves interpreted as being self-serving and contrary to WP:NPOV and WP:COI. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Either the band is notable in itself or it is not; affiliation with other (notable) bands makes no difference, unless it is well-documented. As of now no third-party source has been found. Note that the deletion includes band's members and the album.--PeaceNT (talk) 03:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Allele (band)

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

No assertion of notability. Fails WP:BAND. Recommend Delete. Dchall1 (talk) 04:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they don't pass WP:MUSIC: --mariusstrom 04:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Lane Maverick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Giancarlo Autenzio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Andy Toole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

And I am also procedurally listing another related article (isn't this fun?): Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 12:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Point of Origin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • According to WP:MUSIC a redirect to the notable band is appropriate in cases like that. --Crusio (talk) 13:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. Not deletion. Catchpole (talk) 13:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
So I take it that your vote recommendation is "redirect", not "keep"? --Crusio (talk) 15:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
AfD is not a vote. It doesn't matter if he says "redirect" or "keep". The closing admin can clearly see what the editor is advocating -- RoninBK T C 15:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note that WP:MUSIC requires at least two albums released with a major label. --Crusio (talk) 13:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Actually, their label is pushing the definition of notable as well. Dchall1 (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Corporate Punishment Records isn't notable, i will nom next up. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was keep; the article is sourced now. Sandstein (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Concert Ten

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

Delete Non notable concert per WP:NMG. Cannot find reliable source to substantiate notability claims. Veritas (talk) 04:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Morgan, AfD's generally remain open for at least 5 days after nomination. --Veritas (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


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

Old discussion from VfD

Discussion concluded and article kept on June 1, 2004

Natural Hygiene

This article was listed for deletion, and a notice added to the page, but the mediawiki page wasn't started. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Nitobi

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

Non notable, orphaned article. Rtphokie (talk) 04:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Independent Republic Quarterly

Independent Republic Quarterly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non notable, orphaned article Rtphokie (talk) 04:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G3 by User:Pegasus, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Crans (Moon) and 2007 Jaden

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

Hoax. No such moon, no such asteroid. Corvus cornixtalk 04:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Pegasus «C¦T» 12:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Felix Just

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

No indication of notability in this article, the external link in this article. Google search doesn't produce anything notable either. Rtphokie (talk) 04:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

James Evans (actor)

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

Article about a nonnotable actor generated by himself (76.17X.XX.XXX is a blocked user claiming to be the same) or his associates to promote himself and his work in very minor roles, namely as a bailiff in a handful of court shows. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiAfterDark

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

Non-notable website. Nakon 03:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Promotional? Considering that I'm not connected to the website, that's a blatant assumption of bad faith. You also seem to be forgetting that the article has sources. VanTucky 04:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Google hits are not a valid reason to retain an article. The Boston Globe article is only superficial, as mentioned above. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The search-engine test may, however, be useful as a negative test of popular culture topics which one would expect to see sourced via the Internet —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helohe (talk • contribs) 23:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I get 266 hits. Corvus cornixtalk 03:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I searched like this, did you turn off the family filter? --helohe (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Yup. You're searching for all sites that have the words Wiki, After and Dark in them, not a valid search for WikiAfterDark. Nor even for "Wiki After Dark" (with quotes around the search term). Corvus cornixtalk 21:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Ok, but if I'm searching it your way I get 9200 hits. --helohe (talk) 23:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Did you go to the last page of the search? Only 305 unique hits. -[56] - most of those hits are dups on the same page. Corvus cornixtalk 00:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
      • No I didn't do that, thank you for the info. --helohe (talk) 02:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tikiwont (talk) 10:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

ESP Ahrue Luster

ESP Ahrue Luster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A google search in any language returns results that are mainly product listings with no information on why the product should be considered notable. Article has been unsourced likely because it doesn't appear that there are (m)any sources for this guitar. Travellingcari (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vastly improved by rewrite. Most of the delete comments were prior to the rewrite.--Kubigula (talk) 05:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Skim (software)

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

No notability asserted. No sources. Nothing to indicate this software warrants an article. Speedy deletion denied. Delete Exxolon (talk) 03:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kubigula (talk) 03:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Old Canadian Bank of Commerce Building, Montreal

Old Canadian Bank of Commerce Building, Montreal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

7 english ghits, a handful in French and no google news hits. None of the articles assert any real sense of notability and a search of local press didn't turn up much either. Article has also been orphaned since November 2006. Travellingcari (talk) 03:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Response to Comment - Is true. Google News Archives search is limited to certain newspapers that publish most archives or previews online. Only a handful like the New York Times do. Currently, none of the Montreal newspapers, either still in operation or defunct, will display newspaper articles from that time period on Google News Archives search. --Oakshade (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment so then you go to the source. Local library. I don't think notability can be determined based on what might have been covered. Just my two cents. ProQuest might be an option, however I'm currently having trouble logging in via my school's network. Travellingcari (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • That's what the original commenter was saying. You won't find urls from local newspapers from 1909. They exist on hardcopy and some of those references are now in the article. Print references are valid. --Oakshade (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
** CommentI read the revised article and my vote hasn't changed. I still don't think it meets notability. Clearly others agree as well. See above comments re: historic list of buildings and third party coverage. We'll see how it ends up but in my opinion, it still doesn't meet notability criteria.
  • While I agree with your sentiment, the skyscraper building you're referring to from that reference is the building next door, The Canada Life Building (which probably should have an article for the reason you stated). This building is the one with the large columns to the right of it in the photo. --Oakshade (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Ah! Apologies my bad. That one looks a pretty good example of neoclassical architecture although it might be built a little late to be significant (for Montreal I mean) - I'll have a hunt. --Joopercoopers (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Well the nomination seems rather moot now - the article appears to have more references than bodytext! Out of interest I did find it listed in a catalogue of fine art at the University of Toronto [58] and another photo [59] regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Capital City (The Simpsons)

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

This article is just a plot repetition of this minor city in various Simpsons episodes, with no assertion of notability. As such, it is just duplicative of the very high quality Simpsons article and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

the reference that you feel should be preserved is merely a link to a WP:COPYVIO that has no place on WP. per WP:FICT, we really need a reference that establishes notability to keep the article. Otherwise, you're pretty much just saying WP:ILIKEIT. -Verdatum (talk) 10:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
The ILIKEIT link is "is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it." We should respect that our readers and contributors have an interest in articles and willingness to improve them. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 14:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Whether or not it's a policy or guideline is not the issue. The issue is that it is not a very strong argument, and does little to counter the concerns raised. -Verdatum (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I have to disagree and again I do agree with those who think a merger and redirect without deletion would be acceptable. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, copyright violation. Pegasus «C¦T» 03:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Bruno Baumann

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

Notability, the article is confusing, no links out of it, its orphaned what not... - Milk's Favorite Cookie 02:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was Speedily deleted by Dlohcierekim as nonsense. Dlohcierekim 02:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

North american bearvarine

North american bearvarine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Clearly a hoax. Loonymonkey (talk) 02:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure). --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 03:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Hill (basketball)

Thomas Hill (basketball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No references to establish notability. Fails WP:N and WP:BIO. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 02:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Add the refs, and I'll be glad to withdraw the nom. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 02:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I've added a couple of refs. It seems that he played pro ball in Australia -- I'm still looking for some details. But I'm confident this article can be expanded. Zagalejo^^^ 02:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Looks like a good stub. Withdraw nomination. Good work. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 03:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 delete arguments focussed on the Premier Basketball League but the time and awards in the British Basketball League do qualify. Tikiwont (talk) 10:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Jerry Williams (basketball player)

Jerry Williams (basketball player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No references to establish notability. Fails WP:N and WP:BIO. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 02:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, thanks for DarkAudit for informing me on the nature of the league in question. Change to delete as the league is too minor to transfer notability to players, cheers - Dumelow (talk) 18:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Procedural close. This needs to go to WP:DRV. — Caknuck (talk) 05:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Feloni

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

Non notable? Previous nom closed when pointed to these reviews, but that page is a) self-pub, and b) has reviews *of the cd*, and c) has no reliably sourced material. Artist is non-notable per WP:N and WP:BAND SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sing A Song of Patrick (Spongebob Episode)

Sing A Song of Patrick (Spongebob Episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) and as it's only one particular episode, sources demonstrating notability are non-existent. NF24(radio me!) 01:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Speedy delete per WP:BAND . Keeper | 76 02:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Pirates Records

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

Delete Although i like its name, it would seem to fail Wp:corp & Wp:music, article in no way asserts notability. Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Canley (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Automobile Industry in Germany

Automobile Industry in Germany (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There is no point for the existence of a specific article for automobiles when the article "Industry in Germany" doesn't yet exist. Also, of all branches of German Industy, automobile is the only one to have a specific article, there is no reason for this either. If this article were to cover the "History" of Automobile Industry in Germany, I could understand the point of it existing. As of now this entire article is simply a list of 10 out of date tables that should be present elsewhere on Wikipedia. This lack of reason to exist is one reason why is has been so rarely edited. EconomistBR 00:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Right now that article is utterly abandoned and rarely edited so much so that I removed a 4-month old vandalism on that page. The article's title is not being covered, there is simply the nice title followed by some out dated tables. EconomistBR (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Once someone had the time and will to find enough information he would create that article again and cover it in an appropriate manner. We are not obliged to keep or to have articles on every bit of " notable topic", that would be madness. EconomistBR (talk) 02:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment This last !vote is from the nominator. If you take a look at the article now, I've rewritten to the most stringent referenced standards, and had done so an hour before you wrote the above comment. If you agree, perhaps you will consider withdrawing your nomination. --Canley (talk) 03:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — Caknuck (talk) 05:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

A Klass Records

A Klass Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Anti-Kati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
GOD Rekidz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete minor indy label, no claim to notability per WP:CORP or WP:MUSIC, none of their bands/groups are on WP, blue links goto totally unrelated articles, like heartworm. Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — Caknuck (talk) 05:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Desilate

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

This article is written like a dictionary entry. Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Soxred93 | talk count bot 01:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Opinions are divided, but no sources indicating that he meets WP:BIO are given in the article or the AfD. Fram (talk) 13:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

David Houston (actor)

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

Delete - fails WP:BIO. I disagree that voicing a character, even one like Bond, in a video game gets past the threshold. Otto4711 (talk) 01:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


  • I make no statement about any other video game voice actor article, as WP:WAX is not a valid argument for retaining or deleting an article. That other voice actor articles exist has no bearing on whether this one should. Otto4711 (talk) 02:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
    • In that case, the question of precisely why voicing Bond in a licensed videogame doesn't "get past the threshold" still remains. What exactly is the threshold, and why wouldn't an official portrayal of Bond get past it?Dh67 (talk) 03:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

He is not notable, he simply is another actor who works on the show business but his name was tied to James Bond. If he were notable his name would have already been mentioned on the article Quantum of Solace (video game) which is the new James Bond game he is working on. Now, his name is not mentioned because he is just another guy working in the game. EconomistBR (talk) 04:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 author's request. Keeper | 76 02:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Newmeyer & Dillion LLP

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

No assertion of notability in secondary sources. Seems like a really spammy article trying to increase the Ghits for this particular rather anonymous lawfirm. Also, I have obvious WP:COI and {[WP:SPAM]] concerns. Keeper | 76 01:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Keeper, I hope you are doing well. I would prefer that the entire article just be speedily deleted because I would rather not wait the five days. Can you please advise? Thanks. Steno895 (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Consider it done. Keeper | 76 02:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — Caknuck (talk) 05:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Burj (word)

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

Permastub of non-notable topic that just contains a definition with no sources. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:50, 29 Jan 2008 (UTC) 00:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect. I've updated the Redwall (novel) page to contain the adapation information (it's the same book, but adapted with pictures) in lieu of the existing See also section. The new "Adaptation section" could use an expansion explaining how this new graphic version came about - reviews, illustrators, plot differences...). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The Redwall Graphic Novel

The Redwall Graphic Novel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Red dot design award

Red dot design award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete nn design award where the winners pay for the privilege of having the award appear on their product. Advertisingcruft. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — Caknuck (talk) 05:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Black Mesa Bible Camp

Black Mesa Bible Camp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable summer camp, few unique google hits, advert for camp Montco (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Shipston Excelsior

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

Contested prod, moving to AFD for further discussion. Procedural nomination, no opinion. AecisBrievenbus 00:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Rack Attack

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

This article has been tagged for speedy delete and prodded for being SPAM. Original author has not complied completely with <hang-on> request but makes appropriate comment seeking assistance. That said it should got to AfD for consideration as to whether it is blatant advertising or not. --VS talk 07:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Note - editor had a relationship with a very similar article titled Rack N Road which has been speedily deleted 3 times over the past 12 months.--VS talk 07:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was keep. John254 01:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Bad Newz Kennels dog fighting investigation

The investigation is over, and this article is just a pathetic waste of memory and bandwidth. FOUR WORDS: MERGE TO MICHAEL VICK. --Brokendownferrarienzoferrari (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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