The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:CSD#G3 (vandalism) by FisherQueen. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ngmanis[edit]

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

Blatant Advertising or Self Promotion ... no claim of notability for inclusion in WP Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Wanna know my story?}/ _{Share yours with me!} 21:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article does not exist under this name and seemingly never has. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When Did you Last See Your Money?[edit]

When Did you Last See Your Money? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

It is an episode that doesn't assert notability. Fails WP:EPISODE Leonard^(Bloom) 17:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nancy ^(talk) 20:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yuna Ito's Third Studio Album[edit]

Yuna Ito's Third Studio Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This page should be deleted because there is no proof of this album's existence Dontyoudare (talk) 02:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. LuciferMorgan (talk) 11:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I see nothing reliable or even about the subject from a Google search. It also violates WP:CRYSTAL and WP:MUSIC. Thanks, RyRy (talk) 07:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Neier (talk) 11:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL Tavix (talk) 19:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JavE[edit]

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

Piece of freeware software with no assertion of notability, no sourcing beyond the subject's website, has been tagged as being written like an advertisement for eight months now with absolutely zero improvements. Stormie (talk) 23:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Stormie (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:N. If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.......Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. The only coverage is its website, and this review. Its still pretty exclusive to these websites. TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 23:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete doesn't seem notable. No reliable 3rd party sourcing. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete article has no sources and definitely reads like an advertisement. I don't think the every piece of software deserves an entry and the fact that no improvement has been made to the article in some time is an indication to me that this is not notable. --Deadly∀ssassin 10:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no third party sources and no sign that it's notable. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Akanea[edit]

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

Badly written article about non-notable fictional video game country which has been well covered in the articles on the two games it has appeared in AdamantBMage (talk) 23:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Per nom, I would support a redirect to Fire Emblem#Setting. --Izno (talk) 00:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — There's nothing here that is already covered in the Fire Emblem article. MuZemike (talk) 03:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Subject does not warrant a separate article and is covered in Fire Emblem. Artene50 (talk) 07:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. This article adds nothing that isn't covered better in Fire Emblem --Deadly∀ssassin 10:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as a plausible search topic -- Whpq (talk) 15:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Austin City Limits performers[edit]

List of Austin City Limits performers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Indiscriminate, unsourced, and loooooooooong list of everyone who's ever performed on Austin City Limits. Not a source in sight, no real notability in relation to the series (literally thousands of performers). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 23:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete In each article, it already probably covers these appearances. May I ask, did you try to prod this? TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 23:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure whether you asked this question because you believed TenPoundHammer should have or shouldn't have prod-ed. However my view is that prod-ing any article that's had a dozen or more editors, as this one has, is an abuse of that process. Prod is for uncontroversial deletes: the deletion of articles which multiple people have worked on should always be considered controversial. AndyJones (talk) 12:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A potentially useful list, being long or potentially so is not a valid reason for deletion. The series is notable, the artists are notable and their appearances on the show are notable. As for unsourced, the external link [1] at the end of the page, to the ACL site itsself, sources the article almost fully and reliably. Russeasby (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep while the list strikes me as a list for it's own sake, I have to assume that it's useful for someone and as Russeasby says the fact that it is a long list isn't a reason for deletion. --Deadly∀ssassin 10:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. All we have to do is to make a table.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 23:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 that this fails WP:MUSIC are compelling, and the references given to refute that are much less so. Kevin (talk) 01:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Themis music[edit]

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

Nominating as non-notable self-promotion. References are either band-related websites or directory sites, with the possible exception of the CBC Radio 3 site (although the band admits this site seems to have an open-door policy towards bands, meaning inclusion isn't an indication of notability). While not a primary indicator in and of itself, there are only about 25 Google hits when searching for 'Themis "Wicca rock'" and 'Themis "Wiccan rock'". — Huntster (t • @ • c) 23:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the fact that it has not ...been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. As the nom, it has been mentioned on CBC but I there is that policy.... TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 01:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep * It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. At least three sources E-Music Download Review: Themis Music, CBC Radio3 Review and WebRadio Canada Review verify the article fully and reliably. Mobrien9279 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. The references provided by Mobrien show verifiability but not notability.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 02:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article is notable within substantial portion of the population. The article refers to a very narrow genre of religious music that has few practitioners. Many people who are Wicca's probably don't want to say that. The rules of Wikipedia say that "it is important to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be. When discussing whether to delete or merge an article due to non-notability, the discussion should focus not only on whether notability is established in the article, but on what the probability is that notability could be established. If it is likely that independent sources could be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate" More to the point, the article is notable if it were true. It appears verified true. The fact that in a small country like Canada (Population of New York City) you have the emergence of a new music Genre involving an ecology-based religion is of itself notable. There are a lot of us Wicca around the world. Here in Sweden there are more than a few. Some are outspoken like me. Stop this professional snobbery and keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.80.5.80 (talk) 02:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC) — 88.80.5.80 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep I think notability is established. I found this review (www.e-music.ca/focus1-themis.htm) to be quite useful. Basically it says that Themis has invented a new music classification. I am sure the competing music genres will be upset (there are soooo many) but if you look at the uniqueness its nothing to worry about, just something new but harmless. Themis should be kept alive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.163.29.30 (talk) 03:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC) — 66.163.29.30 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep * Ok. I have asked a number of other people to assit with discography and references. The problem is that I and most people are WIki illiterate and just learning. PLease give me enough time to make the changes needed. Any help would be appreciated. Cheers. -Brian Mobrien9279 (talk) Mobrien9279 (talk) 03:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't !vote more than once -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is worth noting that there may be a link between mobrien.com and webradio.ca. If Mobrien9279 is linked to mobrien.com (and/or to Themis) there could be a potential conflict of interest. - DigitalC (talk) 00:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete can't seem to establish their notability in accordance with policy and guidelines. Lacking in reliable 3rd party references for verifiability. Not sure the review mentioned above is from a reliable 3rd party source either. This article should be deleted and appropriate articles created about the genre Wicca Rock and the band Themis (band) when they both become notable. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete notability doesn't appear to be established, there is a lack of reliable 3rd party sources, and doesn't do well on the google test [2]. --Deadly∀ssassin 10:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• No particular opinion on notability as yet, but it has to be said the quality of the article is terrible, even down to the title - if the band is called Themis (as is the case.....I think) then why is the article entitled "Themis music"...........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My guess on that is because articles entitled Themis already exist about other subjects and AGF the creator is new. Plus perhaps some confusion between the band and the "genre" they created. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, utterly non-notable per WP:MUSIC; sources cited above are nowhere near good enough. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Yes. Themis is a very common name. Mars exploration,+ satelites, + the Themis bands, and mother justice herself all share the name. Themis music which is what the article is about is the name of the Studio and the Band Camp and the Band is called "Themis". Somebody referred to 'the Google test' ('doesn't do well on the google test') (?) Google "Themis" and "Themis music" and you will see incredibly different results. The point is that I think Brian used the name for the article correctly as it describes Themis music the Band Camp, the studio and the concept of wicca music. I disagree with the statement "quality of the article is terrible" and wonder why there is so much derisive commentary in this thread without any form of constructive help or assistance. I guess you must keep outsiders out.

Portrait of the Dead Countess (talk) 12:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment okay in an attempt to help may I suggest that the article be rewritten to better reflect what it is about. Perhaps, by sectioning it and discussing each aspect in a different section. Also perhaps reviewing the help pages on article creation and particularly on "your first article" could help solve some of the "content" problems. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think if the article is kept then the most important improvement that could be made would be to put in some more substantial content about what the band has actually done/achieved to date and trim the huge amounts of unencyclopedic rambling about their beliefs/creed/lyrical content..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also seriously question the claim of the band to have invented a whole new genre of music. One band choosing to sing about a particular subject does not suddenly create a whole new genre of music. Plus, although my knowledge of wicca is minimal to say the least, haven't bands like Inkubus Sukkubus been making rock music with wiccan themes (i.e. "wiccan rock") for many years.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* keep no particular opinion on notability either. it seems fine. I found the article interesting. 66.163.18.194 (talk) 12:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Clearly the same as 66.163.29.30 above. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Comment Interesting isn't a policy or guideline and therefore not really a valid reason to keep. If it were my "vote" would have been different.

• keep some of the links are just listings but four or more articles seem to be from third party sources. It's a close call but I say notable and 'keep'

192.139.80.22 (talk) 12:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Fred Harris — 192.139.80.22 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

question can you let me know which 4 articles you think are from reliable 3rd party sources which cover the subject of the article in a non-trival way are. I will happily look again at them. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

answer reference links 1, 2, 3, and 8 look good to me. the others are valid to support the various elements but after searching on yahoo I found better notability than Themis music uses. above rewrite suggestion might be a good approach —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.139.80.22 (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

replyUnfortunately, I can't access 1, 2, or 8. I've already commented above that the review may not constitute a reliable 3rd party source in accordance with the projects guidelines and policies. Please understand that proving the existence (or even popularity) of the band isn't the same as notability. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reply oh dear. well maybe the connection will open up later. the article at Web Radio has a contact (http://webradio1.net/melanie/) listed and its an interview; the CBC has a section where the band was on the air. The CBC links are slow (java?). The Wicca theme is talked about in one way or another every linked article even the 3rd prty schedule show listings. But wait. The fuss about wiccan rock and Themis is that they are starting a new genre. That's the notable thing, right? I have seen this fuss with a new wine! (gave myself away :) I must get on with my day. name is Joe BTW. and thanks. 192.139.80.22 (talk) 14:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, I would dispute that one band choosing to sing about a particular subject suddenly causes a "new genre of music" to be invented -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* keep I think the edits made already fix the article sufficiently. It should survive. It is notable. 66.163.18.204 (talk) 22:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC) — 66.163.18.204 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Clearly the same as 66.163.29.30 above. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC) [reply]

• Keep the recent edits are good. i will look again tomorrow and see what edits might help. sugestions? Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk) 23:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn self-promo. Libs (talk) 13:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. Note criteria 7, which states "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style". Creating a new "genre" of music is not notable in itself, and needs verifiable reliable sources that states that this genre is notable.
  • Comment: A summary of the current references follows:
    • Webradio.ca - no indication that this is a reliable source
    • E-music.ca - a review of a local show
    • myspace.com - Themis' official myspace, which I don't believe is a RS for the sourced statement
    • Themismusic.com - official website
    • livewithculture.ca - a gig listing for a local show at the Rivoli
  • As such, I feel that it doesn't meet the first criteria of WP:MUSIC, which is - "subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." A gig listing is trivial, and two online reviews don't meet the criteria of multiple non-trivial published works (especially when we consider the reliablily of the sources). - DigitalC (talk) 00:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - clear self-promotion, and doesn't pass any part of WP:MUSIC with multiple reliable sources. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. Is this delete or a keep. This article seems like it have enough source, but the article is not too clear.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 23:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jen Cass[edit]

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

A few claims here and there, a few notable awards and a primary source, and some news reviews mentioned. However, it reads as a big PR piece and I can't find any secondary sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: According to the talk page it was written by her publicist. No secondary sources available (fails WP:V). BradV 14:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 22:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. WP:MUSIC does say "Has had a charted hit on any national music chart", and the article mentions one of her songs being on the National Folk Chart. Nonetheless, article is very poorly written and needs cleanup. IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 22:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As the nominator himself says, "A few notable awards" DGG (talk) 23:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep article desperately needs rewriting for a more neutral encyclopedic tone as well as some reliable 3rd party sources in the reference section. Also need to address the possible copyvio thing (confirming the permission from the talkpage I suppose). She does have 63 GNews hits though and some sourcing for the awards when "Jen Cass" USA songwriting award is searched. Interesting to me was this link [3] simply because it includes another person up for deletion. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Needs a lot of work, but the awards indicate notability, and the following coverage was easily found on Google: [4], [5], [6].--Michig (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus as it stands is in favour of retaining this article. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jer's Vision[edit]

Jer's Vision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is not notable. Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Been a year and a half since the last AFD, and there still isn't significant coverage by secondary sources to say more than "it exists." Previous concerns for lack of sourcing, probable lack of neutrality, etc., are still outsanding. Fails WP:ORG. Ray^Talk 21:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Having just added a source, it appears that further sources are likely to be available. Nobody doubts this is a registered charity, NOTIMELIMIT applies. Ash (talk) 11:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's only a guideline. WP:NOT#HOST, WP:SOAP, WP:MYSPACE, WP:PLOT, WP:NFT (no proof they are a charity. I dispute it) and WP:ORG all apply. It fails all of them. delete Me-123567-Me (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since essays work for you, WP:GARAGE also applies. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You appear to be assuming that this charity is a hobby-horse of mine. In fact I had not heard of them until the article was raised for deletion and I have never even visited Canada. As you challenged the organization's charity status, you may like to know the information is easy to check based on official tax records at http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca (the Revenue Agency). Here's the info if you can't be bothered to look it up:

• • • • Even if they have charity status, that doesn't make them notable. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I added the source to show they were a charity as you stated you disputed it. As for notability, Mayor Harvey Rosen stated that this charity was "Canada's first (and only) national organization to support and encourage the work of youth to address discrimination in their schools and communities" (see citation in article), this is sufficient to meet ORG. Ash (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 11:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 11:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Click on the Google news search at the top of the AFD, and you get 37 results for "Jer's vision". Those results can't be for anything other than the organization. If it is notable enough for various news sources to mention, then that its notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 00:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I've added a couple more sources. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:GNG, doesn't have multiple independent reliable sources establishing notability. Verbal chat

It certainly does have multiple independent reliable sources establishing notability; they're even right in the article and everything! Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; sufficiently sourced to reliable media organizations. Okay, maybe Lifesitenews is a bit iffy (or a lot iffy), but the Toronto Star and Xtra! certainly clear the bar. Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) per WP:SNOW, listing on the National Register of Historic Places means the house is prima facie notable. Whpq (talk) 15:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley House (Fall River, Massachusetts)[edit]

Ashley House (Fall River, Massachusetts) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

does not assert notability for inclusion in WP; lacks citations Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Wanna know my story?}/ _{Share yours with me!} 22:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Listing on the National Register of Historic Places means the house is prima facie notable and therefore stub worthy. There was a citation to the National Register listing (nps.gov). Swampyank (talk) 22:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Registered Historic Places are notable by definition. This policy has been upheld many times. (Don't you people have anything constructive to do?)--Appraiser (talk) 23:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Listing on the NRHP means that the historic and/or architectural significance of the structure has been independently verified. Which means it also meets any notability requirements we might have. It also means there's a 4+ page document on this property published when the site was listed, which cites sources. Needs expansion but expansion is essentially guaranteed to be possible. --Rividian (talk) 23:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Perhaps Speedy Keep. Absolutely notable per NRHP. JRP (talk) 00:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Inclusion standards for the NRHP are much higher than Wikipedia standards. If it's notable per the National Historic Preservation Act, it's notable here. And why was a NRHP site article nominated for deletion within one minute of its creation? --Oakshade (talk) 05:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there may be only one reference, but I think the article should be given time to improve. The subject appears to be notable. --Deadly∀ssassin 10:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Public Information Research[edit]

Public Information Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a garbage article and should be deleted, the organization is not notable and the whole last paragraph is completely pointless - who cares about a 16-year old boardroom skirmish? Giano (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - whilst I don't think it's the most important article we have, it's certainly notable per the organisation notability guidelines.. Per the guideline - "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. " - PIR has been discussed in many secondary sources, including the New York Times making it clearly notable. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lacks notability and per nominator. Ripberger (talk) 22:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Navel gazing. ++Lar: t/c 22:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nuke it from high-orbit. It's the only way to be sure - Alison ^❤ 22:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• comment - navel gazing is not a reason for deletion, but maybe it should be. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - wrong side of borderline notability according to current policies, in my book - and that brings with it attendant 'weight' issues... a browse through the history also indicates to me that we've clearly had major problems working on this article in a balanced way. Privatemusings (talk) 23:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - coatrack article that uses reliable sources in which one or more aspects of the organisation are secondarily or trivially mentioned to give the illusion of notability. Let's review the online references:

• Reference #1 - Guidestar - a registration-required site that is being used to support factual information in the article, including the evidence that PIR is behind Wikipedia Watch and Google Watch, as well as PIR's revenue. If this information is not available except in a website that requires registration, that demonstrates the limited notability of the organisation.

• Added note - When accessing this link using IE, it turns up as a registration-required site; however, using Firefox, I was able to read the site and the page for PIR. It turns out that PIR claims it earns less than $25,000 per year and thus does not file tax returns (see the "Basic information" section). GuideStar also encourages non-profits to edit/update their entries, and claims no responsibility for the content of the site. Therefore, it is not a reliable enough source to stand as the primary source for information. Risker (talk) 03:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The Guidestar site is well-repected among people researching nonprofit groups. Its purpose is that it hosts the 501c3 tax forms of these organizations, so everyone doesn't have to send away to the government to get a copy of them. I imagine even if it allows organizations to upload corrections it would flag them as such. Nobody is suggesting the existence of such a tax form makes an organization notable, but this is an official, primary source used only for financial and organziational facts. It's the same as citing EDGAR or Dunn and Bradstreet. The "no legal responsibility" is a standard disclaimer used in all kinds of publications. I'd also like to point out that notability is not temporary. Wonder what the revenue of PIR was in the early 1990s. Or of its forerunner, Micro Associates, during the Iran-Contra era. Notice there were no complaints about Ref #2 - a 1988 The Nation article about Micro Associates. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref.#3 - New York Times - a 1987 article that focuses primarily on the National Intelligence Book Center, which apparently no longer exists and whose notability is not clear. There are no dots connecting it to PIR, which did not exist in 1987.

• Comment. The article is about both the National Intelligence Book Center ( which I don't think is connected to PIR, but wish we had an article about it ) and Micro Associates ( the forerunner of PIR ). It is the second half of the NYT article we are interested in here. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref.#4 - Counterpunch Minor web news service that specialises in "muckraking". Only NameBase is mentioned in the article, PIR is not mentioned at all.
• Ref.#6 - Salon.com The article is primarily about Google, and uses Daniel Brandt as one of several commentators on problems with Google. It mentions googlewatch.com and NameBase, but not PIR.
• Ref.#7 - New York Times. This article is about John Seigenthaler's Wikipedia article. Daniel Brandt's role is portrayed secondarily, PIR is not mentioned, only Wikipedia Watch.
• Ref.#8 - Society of Professional Journalists/AP Not even a direct link to the AP source, to start with. No information indicating if any other news sites/newspapers/journals even picked up the AP story, or if it was only published in this one source. Neither PIR nor any of the subsidiary websites are mentioned.
• Ref. #9 - Link to NameBase webpage Shows names of directors and advisors and identifies PIR as a 501(c)3 organisation. Does not provide any information about PIR otherwise, does not list subwebsites, does not provide financial information.
• Ref. #11 - Public Eye.org An opinion piece, revised twice over the years, mentions Dan Brandt and NameBase in passing while focusing on "the LaRouchian and Liberty Lobby networks".

This is Trivial Pursuit writ large. I cannot think of another 501(c)3 organisation with an income of only $25,000/year that is worthy of a Wikipedia article, and this one isn't either. Risker (talk) 23:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't see how an organization making less than $25,000 a year could possibly be notable. Captain panda 00:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This seems to look a little like another attempt to remove all mention of the guy running it. The sources are present. Whether the notability is 16 years ago does not make any difference to an encyclopedia. And money != influence or notability. DGG (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• DGG, not one of the non-registration reference sources listed above actually mentions Public Information Research by name. None of them link Google Watch or Wikipedia Watch to PIR. Even the link to PIR and Namebase is shaky; I know several websites that have pages devoted to not-directly-related non-profits. My local SPCA brings in about 30 times this much money a year, and it certainly isn't notable. Risker (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, subject has very little notability. Sticky Parkin 01:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I was going to say keep and analyze the sources for notability, but I see that Risker already did. We also might want to consider deleting these two related articles, as they suffer the problems:

• Google Watch (very little sources, only the Salon article actually centers on the website, and even that one is very centered on its creator Brandt and not the website itself)
• Wikipedia Watch (all notable sources seem to make only passing mentions. like NYT and The Register, Miami Herald seems to be centered on something else)

--Enric Naval (talk) 01:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable per all above, particularly Risker's well-made argument. ~ priyanath talk 02:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no definitive assertions of notability, not worth the pain. Everyking (talk) 07:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, classic coatrack Bishonen | talk 07:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete basically per Risker - no point in repeating his research. Viridae^Talk 07:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per previous rationales. Keeping said article almost appears to be a punishment. Minkythecat (talk) 07:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lack of reliable non-trivial independent sources. The main reason for keeping this appears to be individuals' personal feelings about Brandt. Understandable, but not a reason for having an article. The previous AfD showed clear consensus for not having an article on this subject, merge and delete strongly overwhelmed keep. Guy (Help!) 08:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. The last few sentences stink of a personal grudge and need to be removed, if nothing else. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 08:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per cogent arguments from Lar, Privatemusings, Risker and others. (The fact that Viridae and Guy have agreed on something gives me hope for the future of Wikipedia.) FCYTravis (talk) 10:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable, and because the article appears to push a pov. --Deadly∀ssassin 10:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no substantial coverage in third-party reliable sources, as demonstrated above. Fails WP:N abd WP:ORG. Hut 8.5 10:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article fails our guidelines for inclusion (WP:CORP/WP:WEB). NameBase is at first glance more notable a topic (particularly based on Risker's arguments above), and any worthwhile information pertaining directly to NameBase could be moved there. Neıl ☄ 11:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Despite appearing at first glance to be well referenced, after reviewing the linked citations and the comments on this AfD I find they are trivial and that the notability of the subject is dubious. Chillum 13:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with the various discussions and reviews here, having looked more closely at the sourcing. rootology (T) 13:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: A non-profit with a revenue stream of less than $25,000 is pretty dern small. The fact that the center of that center is a noted Wikipedia hater is as irrelevant to the decision on this "center" as it is to whether or not the person qualifies for a biography. Just a company. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Risker. Rockpocket 16:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Ginao and Risker --Duk 18:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sorry, guys, but there are sources out there in addition to what is in the article. Risker's analysis omits #5, the relevant page is online. Check google scholar and google books, using "Public Information Research" brandt . Take a look at [7] , [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] Maybe merge with namebase. Also per Ryan and DGG. John Z (talk) 18:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, JohnZ, for that additional research. When I was posting yesterday, I was on a restricted computer so couldn't access Google Scholar or Google Book. Let's review these new potential sources.

• Ref. #5 United States History: A Multicultural, Interdisciplinary Guide to Information Services. A. Perrault et al. Libraries Unlimited, 2003. One-paragraph entry focused on NameBase in a 661-page reference work containing "1,250 major entries as well as hundreds of co-entries and minor entries." (preface, p.xviii)
• Toxic Burn: The Grassroots Struggle Against the WTI Incinerator, Thomas Shevory. University of Minnesota Press, 2007. Two paragraphs in a 288-page book, focused on NameBase. The reference source for the material is the Counterpunch article above at Ref.#4.
• Google Power: Unleash the Full Potential of Google, Chris Sherman. McGraw Hill Professional, 2005. One-page entry in an appendix, describing Google Watch's nomination of Google for Privacy International's "U.S. Big Brother Awards", and pointing to another article that refuted the claims made by Google Watch.
• (Editorial - Computerized and networked government information column) Developments in U.S. Federal E-Government Efforts, Juri Stratford. Journal of Government Information, Volume 30, Issues 5-6, 2004, Pages 542-547. Unable to review, as the link is pay-for-access.

"In March 2002, Daniel Brandt, president of Public Information Research, discovered that the CIA Web site was using “cookies” in violation on federal policy" is the gscholar preview on this one.John Z (talk) 06:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Copyright and the Universal Digital Library, an apparently unpublished research paper written by a person associated with Carnegie Mellon University Libraries, on the topic of how Google Books may affect the Universal Digital Library project. Daniel Brandt, Google Watch, and PIR are referred to in one sentence of the 18-page paper. Quote from the paper: "In December 2004, Daniel Brandt of Public Information Research (PIR) and www.google-watch.org wrote a letter to Maurice Freedman of the American Library Association (ALA) urging ALA to pressure the libraries participating in Google Print to require Google to respect the anonymity of users of the digitized library books (Brandt 2004)." (Reference source: Brandt, Daniel (December 15, 2004). Letter to Maurice Freedman, American Library Association. Public Interest Registry (PIR). Available: http://www.google-watch.org/appeal.html ). Several other references to Google-Watch in the article.
• Google and privacy, Paul S. Piper. Internet reference services quarterly (ISSN 1087-5301), 2005, vol. 10, no 3-4 (232 p.). [Article: 9 pages (5 ref.)], pp. 195-203. Unable to review, as the link is pay-for-access. Note: French website, although the article was written by an author affiliated with College of Arts and Sciences, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA.
• Secrecy and Accountability in U.S. Intelligence, a paper prepared for a seminar on intelligence reform sponsored by the Center for International Policy in 1996. Used as a footnote for this sentence: "But in these cases and others, the public attitudes that eventually precipitated declassification became so deeply rooted that they have not been discernably affected by the release of the old documents. In this way, current classification policy promotes public stupidity. (42)." The footnote, one of 53, reads: "Conspiracy-mongering as a strategy for promoting declassification may have already reached its peak, as the threshold for outrageousness becomes unachievably high and public discourse becomes increasingly incoherent. Today, "No one is willing to read 20 books on the CIA when they can watch 20 episodes of 'The X Files,' and have more fun doing it," writes Daniel Brandt of Public Information Research . The result is a problem that Mr. Brandt terms 'Why Johnny Can't Dissent.' "
• Über den Suchgiganten Google oder die Antwort auf die Frage: Wird Google auch zukünftig den Suchmaschinenmarkt beherrschen?, Susanne Richter. Apparently an online seminar sponsored by Freie Universität Berlin (Kommunikationswissenschaften), ISBN: 978-3-638-36184-2. The website and the article are in German, and the link is pay-for-access, so unable to review. A loose translation of the title is "About the search engine giant Google or the answer to the question: Will Google will continue to dominate the search engine market?"

Here's a better (free) link for this one. PIR is referred to only as one of 31 organizations urging Google to suspend Gmail in an open letter (in English). Hadn't had a chance to look at it yesterday.John Z (talk) 05:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I am still not seeing significant coverage of PIR, although one or two of these references might be useful for the articles on the specific websites. Even the links provided to pay-for-access sites are unlikely to yield much more than a few footnotes or perhaps a paragraph within a much larger work, and they look to be mostly Google-focused. Risker (talk) 04:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems sufficient to me, in addition to what's in the article already, at least to support a merge and redirect. Toxic Burn has the information, not in the article or in Counterpunch, that PIR dates to the early 70's under the name Micro Associates, and is a bit more than just on NameBase. My interest in these matters is less than zero, but I think one should beware of applying standards too strictly to a case like this (navel taboo?), of deletion based on difficulty of writing a neutral article (how can people learn to write neutrally other than by working on difficult cases?) and of sorites - type reasoning.. So it seems more logical to keep this article, as the umbrella organization, and merge (some of) the various projects, Wikipedia Watch, Google Watch, NameBase, Navel Watch etc into it. Clearly this would result in fewer articles, and arguably this would result in less NGPOV than just deleting this article.John Z (talk) 06:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Risker's excellent reasoning. Naerii 19:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with the above. Great job Risker. Tex (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Risker and Giano. While related entities might be somewhat notable, PIR fails WP:CORP as far as I can see. I have a suspicion that NGPOV (navel-gazing point of view) is the major reason we keep this around. We don't like WR, so we keep the article so we can have someplace to talk about Brandt & Co. In the greater world, it's just not that important. Kylu (talk) 03:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it's time for Wikipedia to grow up and remove articles on people that nobody would care about apart from their being related to Wikipedia. (And to answer the "what about Jimmy Wales" question, when people start paying to see D.B. speak on the lecture circuit, then we can have an article about him.) --B (talk) 05:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Addendum: Image:Public Information Resarch.GIF - Nonfree content logo, to be deleted if the article is. Kylu (talk) 05:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Risker. Dance With The Devil (talk) 06:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete mostly per Risker. Two reservations: (i) Counterpunch is more significant than Risker suggests (it's actually pretty good) -- but its article doesn't mention this company; (ii) I'm grateful that the WP article told me of "L Fletcher Prouty", a name I'd have assumed was thought up by or for Groucho Marx. (Yes, so much of the US seems to have been thought up by or for Groucho. But I digress.) John Z's assiduously collected little mentions go to show that PIR has above-zero significance, but to me they don't say much more. -- Hoary (talk) 07:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep How many references do you need to prove notability?--Poetlister 12:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Just enough to support what is being said, the problem is that the references are not really doing that, see all the other comments above. Chillum 15:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• It's not so much the number of references, but what type of references and what they're referencing. Can you prove that PIR meets the requirements at WP:CORP? If so, share and (potentially) fix the article. Kylu (talk) 03:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's non-notable, and "Daniel Brandt wants it deleted" is not sufficient to keep it, although it is tempting. Horologium (talk) 15:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. per Risker and the non-notability thing. Peter Damian (talk) 17:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Risker's said it best. Wizardman 00:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, and merge NameBase into it. Organization has importance outside WP. I don't care what certain Wikipedians think of it, it ( with NameBase ) has been around for a long time; I've seen it featured in a Whole Earth catalog circa 1990. Last paragraph is particularly important, shows relationship between PIR and various other investigative or specialized media outlets. Notable part of the alternative media, and has plenty of references. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Here's another source; a magazine called Online apparently did an entire article about PIR and NameBase in September 1996, entitled NameBase tracks lesser-known political players. Here's abstracts from HighBeam [14] and EBSCO.[15] From the above debate, it sounded like people wanted an article that focused entirely on PIR. Well, here it is. Now can we stop the silliness? Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as the sources provided, including the article cited by Squidfryerchef above, indicate sufficient coverage of this organization in third-party reliable sources to establish a presumption of its notability per the general notability guideline. John254 02:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 UseModWiki. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CvWiki[edit]

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

Non-notable obsolete software; no coverage in reliable sources is evident. Its historical significance (if any) as a precursor of UseModWiki, which may or may not be notable itself, is already noted in that article.  Sandstein  09:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 22:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge bases on the nom's information.DGG (talk) 22:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to UseModWiki, this article in and of itself does not assert notability. --Deadly∀ssassin 10:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 03:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zombina and The Skeletones[edit]

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

Taste the Blood of Zombina and the Skeletones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Monsters on 45 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (also a redirect, Monsters On 45

Death Valley High (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fails WP:MUSIC. Ectoplasmic is not a major label. Myspace is not a reliable source, and neither is the band's own page. Search results consist mainly of lyrics sites, also not reliable sources. Internal links in the article mostly circle back to the article, especially for Zombina herself. DarkAudit (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete artist and albums. Artist fails WP:MUSIC in every way, and so do the albums. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 22:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, notability not established per WP:MUSIC or WP:MUSIC#Albums.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 02:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it fails WP:MUSIC and has no 3rd party sources. --Deadly∀ssassin 10:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This band meets the "heard of them before seeing the Wikipedia article" test. Seem to be a reasonable number of sources available per Google News. [16] - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply That is not a valid guideline. WP:MUSIC is. Having your hometown paper send a guy 'round to see a hometown show is not a reasonable show of notability to pass WP:MUSIC. Neither is "so-and-so appeared" in a review of a wider event. Many of these listings you present are club listings, not news. DarkAudit (talk) 15:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This band is internationally recognised, as evidenced by many press articles on their official site (along with being featured on many movie soundtracks and having worldwide radio airplay). Having checked the music guidelines several of the criteria are easily met by this band. To the person who said that the band's official site is not a valid source of information - can you please explain what does constitute a valid source of information if the OFFICAL SITE OF THE BAND is not enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.193.128 (talk) 00:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Per the reliable sources guideline, sources must be reliable, verifiable, and independent of the subject. A band's own site is not independent. DarkAudit (talk) 01:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The Google News results linked above include reviews in the Liverpool Daily Post, a major regional newspaper not "your hometown paper send[ing] a guy 'round to see a hometown show", and NME, a major source for this type of subject matter. There are also articles from Finland, Greece, Japan and the United States - even less "hometown". Maybe the individual albums aren't notable, but they can easily be merged into the band's article without being deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Liverpool paper reviewing a show at a Liverpool club is still local, no matter the size of the paper. These are your average club dates that any large city will have, The NME links appear to be club listings, not features about the band except in one possible case. A single feature (and I can't tell how much of a feature it is without putting up money to find out) is not "substantial". Notability is not inherited from the people doing the coverage. Trivial coverage is still trivial coverage no matter whose byline it's under. DarkAudit (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 14:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Waggers (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tequila stuntman[edit]

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

Unreferenced and nonnotable. Marked for deletion by WP:MIX for about a year and a half now, with no action taken. Sneftel (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable, not sourced, abandoned by its author Rklawton (talk) 15:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 21:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, doesn't appear to have any support or much going for it. --Deadly∀ssassin 10:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nancy ^(talk) 20:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pennsylvanian (cocktail)[edit]

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

An article on a non-notable cocktail recipe. Normally I'd just PROD and say WP:NFT and WP:NOTGUIDE, but since there appears to be some history and at least one citation that is actually about the topic, I figured I'd bring it here for discussion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per WP:NOTCOOKBOOK --T-rex 00:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per a redlink? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I could turn that into a blue link if I wanted to, but I think it gets my argument across equally well without doing so --T-rex 21:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep The article needs better writing, but the subject appears to have some marginal notability. It would also fit in well with the WikiProject on Mixed Drinks. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 21:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Week Keep as it has some relevant references and although it sounds like a foul drink (egg white and a twist of lemon??!!) it has some notability. --Deadly∀ssassin 10:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Provisional Delete since out of curiosity I have just looked through the source links, and found that none of the pages at the other end seem to mention this drink, except the last which tells me, I don't know how reliably, that contrary to the article (but more appealingly) this cocktail is made from 2 oz light rum, 1/2 oz pineapple juice and 1 dash grenadine. AndyJones (talk) 12:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:N. Other than the Internet Cocktail Database, sources in the article don't include the term on the linked pages. I tried Google and did not find it listed anywhere else. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shmuel Yerushalmi[edit]

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

No sources for notability, and no sources for many biographical details. Most of the sources that cited are unacceptable as they are free-access sites - groups.yahoo.com, topica.com, www.nowpublic.com. stage.co.il is the Israeli MySpace - anyone can open an "artist page" there. The only reliable sources here are from Haaretz and SikurMemukad.co.il. Haaretz by itself is a respectable newspaper, but not everyone who is mentioned once in a respectable newspaper should have an article. I haven't seen the SikurMemukad.co.il website before; it doesn't seem to be unreliable, but the article itself admits that all that this site had about this man is one interview. It is also worth mentioning that this article was deleted and salted in the Hebrew Wikipedia after multiple attempts at re-creation (Vote for deletion; Salted title - שמואל ירושלמי). Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - many self-published writers or poets on the internet, some of whom are more notable, like Shaul Reznik. It should be noted that we Wikipedians are not robots and should not assess notability simply based on the existence of an article or two from X newspaper about a person - we should look at the overall coverage he has received, and in this case, it's certainly lacking. Also, none of the subject's works seem to be phenomenal and there doesn't seem to be any major independent coverage of his works. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Vancarlimospacecraft and WP:WING Avi (talk) 21:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to Tali Fahima. This strikes me as a bit of a vanity article and per nom the sources appear to be pretty weak. --Deadly∀ssassin 10:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Even the Haaretz article, which is the only reliable source that is not self published, describes him as a fringe poet. Also, this article appears in several languages, with similar structure. I'm not fluent in all of those languages, but I suspect auto-translation - and thus self promotion. The bit about Tali Fahima can be added into that article. -- Nudve (talk) 11:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:BLP and WP:BIO require stringent adherence to sourcing requirements regarding controversial statements about people, including statements that people are saying and doing controversial things. Right now there are simply no reliable sources to substantiate most of this article, or which give this individual substantial coverage. WP:BLP removes some of the flexibility for borderline cases that exists for articles on other subjects. Current sourcing just doesn't cut it with WP:BLP. We have to deal with the fact that it's not all that hard for somebody to create a hoax and set up myspace pages etc. as a joke or even in order to libel someone. WP:BLP demands reliable sources that establish basic facts about a controversial individual for a reason. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 03:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anders Benjamin Hanson[edit]

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

Contested prod by an IP (likely the creator). The subject of this article is non-notable. Hanson's only claim to faim is winning the Teachers' Choice Award, a non-notable award. None of the references establish this author's notability. The first reference is a biography about him from his own publisher. The second reference is to the site where he won the Teachers' Choice Award but his name is not even mentioned on the page. A Google search to this site with Hanson's name also returns no results. The third and last reference is to a list of books by Hanson on Amazon.com. He's written an assortment of books but none of them are notable. I also did three Google News searches on this author. None return a result about him. This person definitely fails WP:BIO. Cunard (talk) 20:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I see one of his books (Cool cards : creating fun and fascinating collections!) in about 200 libraries, and the many others in less than 100 each. For this sort of material, I don't think that amounts to notability. DGG (talk) 22:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was

Amy p goldman[edit]

Closed as speedy keep. Nom withdrawn. Did not see the NYTimes and Washington Post.

Amy p goldman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Asserts notability and has lots of references. A closer look shows connections between many of the osurces and the subject-- articles she's written. I did not find WP:Verifiable sources showing notability. I'm sure she is well regarded by her colleagues at the New York Botanical Garden, but that is not enough. I don't think the NY Sun or Martha Stewart appearances are quite enough to sustain a claim of notability. Dlohcierekim 20:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grokumentary[edit]

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

Total neologism. Google has scarcely heard of it. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and WP:NEO. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A little bit neologism, a little bit advertising for the website at the end of the article + on the (signing) article creator's user page. Quickie engine search didn't turn up anything of value. Townlake (talk) 21:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This neologism is being featured in this article not so much to explore this purported film genre, but to promote a particular film. In short, this is advertising. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as somewhat subtle advertisement, and blatantly invented neologism. --Deadly∀ssassin 10:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing notable here. --Crusio (talk) 16:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wicca rock[edit]

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

WP:NEO, no reliable sources, something someone made up one day, possible hoax ("sometimes called gothic rock") Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable neo-genre. DCEdwards¹⁹⁶⁶ 20:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this "genre" seems to be played by one band. Too minor for Wikipedia. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't care about "minor" as a reason for deletion, we care about "notable" and "verifiable". If there's only one demonstrable and notable Elven Jedi out there, then Elven Jedi is a non-empty subgroup. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable neologism Artene50 (talk) 07:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Says the author. Perhaps someone could suggest a sensible merge with another religious music genre. I obviousluy had a hard time fitting Wicca rock into Gospel rock, Gospel music, Religious music, sacred music, Christian music, Southern Gospel, Jesus music but that Wikipedia has no category for the Wicca religion's music makes it no less true that it exists and should be written about.

"Too minor for Wikipedia" and "seems to be played by one band" are friendly observations that inadvertantly say that a certain religion over another's is deemed too miniscule. That does not seem to warrant deleting the work that I put into this incipient category. I agree that confessed Wiccans and Vegans likely mumerically comprise no more than 1 to 2% of any country's society and that is very small indeed but nevertheless to be encyclopedical and comprehending a wide variety of information on each topic (religious music) is to cover the fullest possible range. We are not discussing whether religious music is germane, we are discussing whether or not a particular religion's music is acceptable.

I would rather address your issues and ask for help in doing that to keep this category of religious music alive in some form. I am collecting additional information about numerous other practitioners

"it is important to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be. When discussing whether to delete or merge an article due to non-notability, the discussion should focus not only on whether notability is established in the article, but on what the probability is that notability could be established. If it is likely that independent sources could be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate."

"something someone made up one day, possible hoax" doesn't seem to be a valid objection so I can't deall with that.

In summary, I am eager to work at expanding the article to bring it up to snuff. What's needed? Can anyone help? Thanks Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk) 10:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! You accidentally removed my comment, which isn't the done thing round here. Don't worry, it's fixed (and I made every mistake going when I was new... :-o ). I agree it's not a hoax, I think the question is whether a genre of music played only by one band deserves its own article. Perhaps a redirect to Themis music might be a good option. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm prepared to accept that it is not a hoax, but a genre of one is not notable. It is absolutely "something someone came up with one day" and as such should be deleted per WP:NFT. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete per some of the same comments I made at Themis music's AfD. Although, I have to admit I'm not a 100% sure about what makes a genre notable or even who gets to call something a genre. If it can be reliably sourced independently (all the references seem to be for the band) I'd say include a subsection in Gothic Rock and expand when notable as separate from Themis. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think it is well worth noting that the AfD templates have been removed from this article and that for Themis music by the author and an IP who's only other contribution is the Themis music AfD. We may have an issue with WP:OWN. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Let's Assume Good Faith new users make mistakes (or do things on purpose because they don't know better). I don't see a WP:OWN as much as they are the only substantial contributors at present to an article they feel passionately about. Let's stick with the merits and/or flaws of the article and leave behaviour issues for the more appropriate places. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep(see below) As an example of the genre, how about Julian Cope? Extremely notable, and certainly an exponent of "Goddess Rock". Would he classify as "Wiccan" though (the precise theological distinctions are beyond my knowledge) Andy Dingley (talk) 13:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'd need a reliable source that says this, though. Totnesmartin (talk) 13:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what? Must be tons of them, just cite a slab of the Peggy Suicide lyrics. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question how can Julian Cope be an example of a "genre" that didn't exist until recently (2007 at the earliest based on the article(s) in question)Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because acts come before the genres they develop. You can't have a genre that nobody ever played. Someone could have a long career before being lumped into a new genre, like with Neil Young and Grunge. Totnesmartin (talk) 13:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How familiar are you with Copey? He's been doing what he does (which is very obviously Rock with a strong Goddess theme) for years now. It doesn't matter if no-one bothered to label it before. This article probably is about a neologism, but that's not a bad thing. One of our funtions is to describe and explain them, once they're clearly established and notable. The only question really left is whether Copey would count as "Wiccan" or some other branch of neo-pagan droodery. I'm sure TotnesMartin is far more knowledgeable there than I am. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(interrupting the thread :P) well I'm a Pagan, and I have some Julian Cope albums, and his autiobiography (which doesn't mention Wicca, btw) Totnesmartin (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Please understand. I'm not disputing Julian Cope or anything about him or his music. I like pretty much all music (although I really don't know about genres and such because I listen to too much different stuff to get caught up in that. The problem is the article in question isn't about "Goddess Rock" it is about "Wicca Rock" which according to the article (and its references) is a very recent creation of one band. If we can find reliable 3rd party sourcing which helps to separate the two than I wouldn't have a problem with an article on the subject but, this isn't remotely that article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that's rather missing the point. What is important is whether the term "Wicca rock" is notable or whether it is a non-notable neologism. That Julian Cope played rock and may have been a Wiccan is neither here nor there. Incidentally, a Google search for "Julian Cope" and "Wicca rock" produces squat. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that Copey isn't just a "Goddess-following musician", but that his notable style over many years has made this an integral part of the music (as I asked, how familiar are you with his lyrics?). He makes something that is very likely the canonical example of "Wiccan Rock", and has done it for far longer than this one Canadian band. My only concern is whether he's a "Wiccan", as there are subtle distinctions and schisms around the whole scene. Local to here (SW England), people throw salt at each other in the street because they think they're following a "bad" religion - I'd hate to mis-label anyone. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this cites Julian as a Wiccan, and also pulls in Tori Amos and The Pretenders, but doesn't define a "Wicca rock" as such. There's possibly room for an "influence on music" section in Wicca. Totnesmartin (talk) 14:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• keep I x'd over from the other thread too. I saw Gospel rock et al and see the point above. I noted that Pagan Radio describes 'Themis' as both "Pagan" and "Gothic". I read Pagan rock and see that it is much different from Wicca rock. Also some of the bands in Pagan rock may belong in Wicca rock the way the latter reads. Christian music has umpteen genres/categories--non-Christian music likely mimics that.

192.139.80.22 (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Pagan rock" is about as far from "Wiccan rock" as Ulster marching bands are from the Sistine chapel. The only things they have in common are rock, and being equally distrusted by Christians. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reply lol yes. i get that. i was looking at described musical style and wondered if some bands might be cross genre: wicca/pagan. maybe not after all. cheers. -Joe 192.139.80.22 (talk) 14:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The funny thing is that "Wicca" is a subset of "pagan" (without annoying too many practitioners), but "Pagan rock" as a commonly-used genre is firmly at the dark Odinist end of Paganism. It would be a terrible idea to merge Wicca rock with Pagan rock Andy Dingley (talk) 15:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• keep I think with the clean-up edits done at Themis music and addtional cleanup of the Wicca rock article the concept of a new genre of Wicca rock can survive with the articles. It is also a good suggestion to add an "influence on music" section in Wicca." in the alternative, if this article does nto survive. I agree with Andy Dingley that "It would be a terrible idea to merge Wicca rock with Pagan rock" and want to ask for help from Nymphetamine labyrinth and others editing this article to sustain it. Mobrien9279 (talk) 23:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (change of opinion from above) As it stands, this isn't a good enough article to preserve. The topic of this article "Wiccan themes in the music of Themis", which I can't see as being sufficiently notable, outside a section of that band's own article.

As an article (even a category) on "Wiccan rock", then I think this would be a fine and notable subject. It would have to include the scope of all the bands currently playing "Wiccan rock", which would include Themis, Julian Cope and probably others. It should also have a nod in the direction of Pagan rock and early-70s bands making a move towards environmentalist and neo-Wiccan themes (almost any old hippy still playing after the '73 oil crisis, notably CSNY and their collaborators). As this article stands though, it's just not well enough written. It's a prime (and unnecessary) example of WP:COAT where it tries to hang a whole genre on too-close a look at one band. It's a good subject, but this isn't an encyclopaedic article to cover it. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Andy Can you write something that explains how Julian Cope fits. I would love to but can't but maybe there's more to Cope than I have seen. cheers Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk) 03:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You best bet is probably to ask at talk:Julian Cope Andy Dingley (talk) 12:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Note To Andy (please help me)I re-wrote the article using everyone's suggestions pretty much. Hellboy and I think Katie were walking all over me as i did that but I dont think there's any point in nitpicking the original article because even I think it sucks and I wrote it. :s So the new piece is a new start. And I don't exactly know how to do what you suggested insofaras category syntax goes. Please help if you will. Could I also beg a para from you on cope? Much thanks :o) Cheers Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk) 05:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: We need to start with the sources, and then write the article according to them. The problem is that Wiccan Rock is a neologism, and that there are no reliable sources (that I know of) discussing Wiccan Rock. A broader article, such as Wiccan Music, or a Category such as Wiccan Musicians may be appropriate if adequate sources are found. Find the sources first, and then write the article according to them - remember Wikipedia is not the place for original research. DigitalC (talk) 01:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pledge Your Allegiance... To Satan![edit]

Pledge Your Allegiance... To Satan! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Per WP:MUSIC#Albums, compilations are not generally notable, meaning that they do not gain notability from the bands which appear in them. The article does not assert the notability of the album at all, and completely lacks sources. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 20:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete, no notability whatsoever, and as an aside, I question the notability of some of the bands on it. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Only 3 bands listed are not redlinks, and only one of those would likely pass muster with WP:MUSIC. DarkAudit (talk) 21:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy DeleteStrong Delete Per DarkAudit. There are also no sources, which makes me wonder about credibility. America69 (talk) 22:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It can't be speedied, actually, since CSD A7 doesn't cover albums and none of the other CSD apply either. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 00:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. Fixed that. America69 (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Albums.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 02:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ...and to the republic, for which it stands.... Sorry, WP:MUSIC problems. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my prod: Fails WP:Notability (music): compilation album from a record label that itself has no article and whose website hosting appears to have expired. No evidence of notability given. Articles like this make me wish WP:CSD#A7 applied to albums. --Closeapple (talk) 05:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete . I was waffling between no consensus and delete on this for a while, but the keep arguments are not persuasive. The delete argument that not enough non-trivial and independent sources exist for the site was never fully rebutted and no other such sources were found. I am willing to restore if more sources are found. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 14:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ex-premie.org[edit]

Ex-premie.org (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This site would appear to fail Wikipedia:WEB#Criteria for notability. There appear to be only a handful reliable sources that have ever referred to the site; none of them appear to have exceeded a brief summary of the nature of the site's content, as required by WP:WEB. Jayen466 19:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Jayen466 20:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Website-related deletion discussions. Jayen466 06:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Notice of this discussion given at talkpages of WP:WEBSITES and WP:RELIGION. Cirt (talk) 14:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• (primary author) Keep - I know the base isn't too broad, but it satisfies the needs of WP:WEB: it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself;
  Alternatively: redirect, see below (Nik Wright's entry) --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC) updated 10:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Keeping it to "keep" again, after an additional reliable source was added to the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (disclaimer: I have a declared COI on the subject, submitting this comment for uninvolved editors assessment)

Per WP:WEB, a website is considered notable only if "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. [...] excluding Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address [...] or a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site"

The sources provided in the article, besides the one by Ron Geaves, all fall within the exceptions stated, as follows:

1. Mather - mention of the web address only
2. Good Weekend - self-reference by the founder of the site, not an independent description of the site contents
3. Rocky Mountain news - Trivial coverage, does not describe the contents of the site
4. The Register - Does not discuss the content of the site, just a mention of its existence by the webmaster of the site, not an independent description of the site contents. In addition, there is no consensus about the status of that online publication about being a WP:RS

In summary, it seems that there is only one non-trivial/independent of the site itself description of the site content (Geaves), which does not convey notability as per the guideline that requires "multiple non-trivial published works". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Good Weekend is not a "self-reference" in the sense that the source (Good Weekend) is independent of the site itself. Such magazine and its reporters are free to interview who they want, if they publish the result of such interview that adds to the notability of their interviewee (and the topic they're interviewing him/her about). --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source is related to the site itself: The journalist was a member of the group, as per evidence presented elsewhere. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The site is not a group, so "the journalist was a member of the group" makes no sense.

Just to add to Francis's comment, the journalist has contributed to the site, but so have over 300 other people. There is no 'group' despite Jossi's and other Rawat followers' repeated claims that there is. --John Brauns (talk) 07:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soul Rush (book) was published by someone who was a member of the "group" of followers of Prem Rawat. Whether or not she was a member of that group does not make a difference for the fact that that book contributed to the notability of Rawat. Similar for the journalist, whether or not he was related to a website is irrelevant for the notability added to that website resulting from the publication by a third-party publisher. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Jossi's COI regarding a competitor website should, indeed, duly be considered imho. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I posted my disclosure, with the hope that arguments are cosidered on their merits by editors not involved in this dispute, such as you who create this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then please retract your Good Weekend argument, you know it is unjustified. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see the need to retract a comment, and I will not make any further comments so that the AfD discussion can proceed without my involvement. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Re. "I will not make any further comments so that the AfD discussion can proceed without my involvement": tx.

It is however clear you wanted to influence the outcome of this debate with arguments without merit. The assessment by uninvolved editors should keep that in mind. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They should also please keep in mind Jossi's disruptive editing of Ex-premie.org, see example below. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable. Each of the "sources" given fail to establish notability as they merely mention "ex-premie.org" and do not focus on it nor feature it. Most of the article is original research, as the sources do not support what is said in the article (i.e., founder, members, etc.). Windy Wanderer (talk) 21:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was this your third edit ever to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Prem_Rawat/Evidence&diff=next&oldid=202372876 ?
  • Re. "as the sources do not support what is said in the article":
    • "founder": in fact: founders: confirmed by the sources (Good Weekend, the history page at the ex-premie.org website) – please explain your problem, I see none.
    • "members": the only occurrence of the word "member" is in a direct quote from a source (The Guardian). Note Jossi's disruptive editing here: [17] (it confuses while it doesn't explicit that the quote refers to members recovering from the Divine Light Mission not any elusive members of a "website"); then here he deletes the other instance of material referenced to The Guardian that does explicit who is intended by "members" by the author of that article: [18]. I restored the correct phrasing now: [19] – in other words Jossi in action at COI editing
    • "etc" – please explicit if you see any other problems. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No vote. Merely a comment, not a vote at all, for me, it would be inappropriate. I merely want to ask the parties here, who are involved in the Prem Rawat mediation case, not to, er, question every editor over their !vote, when they !vote. As you all know, this is a contentious area, and this sort of behaviour will strongly dissuade participation in this AFD. That said, I'd encourage editors to participate in this debate, but I know the chances are slim given the contentiousness of this area of editing. Steve Crossin (contact) 22:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, should have given more attention to the merits of the arguments: "Most of the article is original research" is plain bogus and without merit – and insofar the argument had merit it was caused by Jossi's disruptive editing. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Windy Wanderer was involved in the Prem Rawat arbitration case, that's what I think should've been made explicit, as I did. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• No vote As the current webmaster of the site I do not think it will be appropriate for me to vote. And just to put other editors' minds at rest I will not lose any sleep whichever way the vote goes! :-) --John Brauns (talk) 07:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain. I was a source for the John MacGregor article in Good Weekend(which I never retracted, btw). Therefore, I'll recuse myself from voting here. There is also content on EPO under my (real) name. I'll echo what John said: I also won't lose any sleep over which way this vote goes. Also want to add that there is no "Ex-premie group." There are people who have discussions on an internet forum and it is a sort of online community, but isn't a group that is part of Ex-premie.org, which is a website, not a group of people. The "group" idea is something that premies (adherents) of Prem Rawat made up and perpetuated through repetition of the same. Thanks! Sylviecyn (talk) 15:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, agree with Francis Schonken (talk · contribs) - there does seem to be enough discussion in WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources to satisfy WP:WEB. With some work on formatting and syntax it is possible this article could become a quality piece. Cirt (talk) 20:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A few minor mentions doesn't make it notable.Momento (talk) 10:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Neither the group, whether or not it exists, nor the website seems to be notable enough for inclusion. Rumiton (talk) 14:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Apart from the article by Ron Geaves, none of the other articles can be attributed to reliable sources. For example, the author of the article in The Good Weekend subsequently withdrew his claims, apologised to many people for his allegations, asked the webmaster of the ex-premie.org site to remove his authored material (a request that was denied) and was proven to have been an unreliable witness in a court of law in Australia. It cannot be claimed that the article can be attributed to reliable sources.

• The site does not meet the notability guidelines. The mentions made in various other articles hardly rates the site as notable, and the sources are not independent of the subject. If a couple of mentions in a few newspapers confers notability, Wikipedia would be swamped by spurious and irrelevant material. Apart from the Geaves article, nothing on the site is independent of the site itself.

• It seems strange that Wikipedia should become a site that indexes websites. If there was a phenomenon that could be discussed, as generally occurs in encyclopedia entries, then it might be included. But acting as an index for a website? Hardly a legitimate activity for Wikepedia. Armeisen (talk) 22:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This site seems to be for the promotion of personal POVs Terry MacKinnell (talk) 01:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As per primary author , or alternatively re-direct as per Wikipedia:WEB#Criteria note 2 ^ Websites or content which fail these guidelines but are linked to a topic or subject which does merit inclusion may be redirected to that topic or subject rather than be listed for deletion.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re. "...may be redirected..." – I'd propose Bibliography of Prem Rawat and related organizations as a target page candidate in that case. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Withdrawn "redirect" option, see above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, a multitude of sources have been provided that demonstrate external attention to the subject. Everyking (talk) 08:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non notable with few sources. This organization may become notable in the future, but until such a time, should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Windy Wanderer. — goethean ॐ 23:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Discussed in a surprising number of reliable sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adult Contemporary radio panel[edit]

Adult Contemporary radio panel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Indiscriminate, outdated list of stations that report for the Hot Adult Contemporary Tracks charts. No source could be found to verify this info. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a directory or a place to store lists. AlbinoFerret (talk) 15:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 19:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Wikipedia:Not#Wikipedia is not a directory and Wikipedia:Not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Cunard (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Signing up for a tournament is not notable. Kevin (talk) 02:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Gardiner[edit]

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

Not close to being notable. Punkmorten (talk) 19:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:ATHLETE. He has professional tennis at the highest level. Resolute 20:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to Delete per below. No sources found to back up claims in article. Resolute 17:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Has been deleted and recreated multiple times now. Personal section and username obviously seem to be the subject. Technically being professional does not make him notable. Reywas92^Talk 21:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Er....yes it does. Subject has competed at a professional level in a professional tournament, so he satisfies WP:ATHLETE. WilliamH (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Per what's unfolded, subject is unverifiable. My comment here is to Delete. WilliamH (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Do we have different rules for those competing in junior status? --which seems to be the case here. I thought we were less inclusive for them. DGG (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• We are, but I was under the impression that ATP Challenger Series is a professional tournament. If someone more clued up on ATP tennis is able to shed more light, by all means do so. WilliamH (talk) 23:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no trace of the guy according to the ATP. The calendar of events produced by ATP [20] and [21] doesn't have an LA event listed until NEXT month. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement Contact International Tennis Federation at +44 (0)20 8878 6464 if you have any questions. Casey Gardiner's ipin on our records is GAR1227171. Use that reference when calling the ITF. Our records show he is signed up for 3 tournaments in the month of September. USA F22 FUTURES - CLAREMONT, CA on 08 September 2008 - 14 September 2008, USA F23 FUTURES - COSTA MESA, CA on 15 September 2008 - 21 September 2008, and USA F25 FUTURES - LAGUNA NIGUEL, CA on 29 September 2008 - 05 October 2008. All three have an entry status of "Entered".ATPTennis (talk) 17:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If he hasn't actually competed in a professional tournament yet, then he fails the notability criteria for athletes. WilliamH (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Im in not place to talk about this subject but this guy seems to have played in a main draw once in Yuma City. As a junior he did play in the qualifying rounds of professional tournaments. He is listed on tennisrecruiting.com as a top rated high school player in 2006. I called the number because I'm sort of curious. Name checks out in their database listed as a player on the Pro Tour. I'm in the military and I checked his name on our end. He is an active duty member in the Marine Corps. It shows he had orders cut to participate in a "competitive tennis tournament". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.140.55 (talk) 21:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"IP" would you mind confirming who in the United States government disclosed to you information about an individual soldiers deployment orders. The process you went about in order to garner this information. And lastly, why his deploying to participate in a "competitive tennis tournament" makes him notable. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Personel Administrative Clerk in the Marine Corps. It's really quite easy to look up members. He had orders cut from May 27th to June 9th for a tennis tournament. We have free international calling here in this office and so I called the ITF and they confermed his playing activity and record. I stumbled upon this article by browsing through our IP edit logs.138.162.140.55 (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are a Personnel Administrative Clerk I would have expected you to be able to spell "personnel", and also to know that you are putting yourself at risk of severe disciplinary action by revealing this confidential personal and operationally sensitive information. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty much impossible to find out who he is. It looks like the entire Navy/Marines Corps uses a total of 3 different IP's for all their work stations. I'm pretty sure they would be more keen on disciplinary actions of the service members editing posts about the Navy/Marine Corps and replacing it with offensive material. Non the less, his word isn't notable since its not public knowledge. I'm kind of tempted to call the number but since its Sunday I'm pretty sure their offices are not open. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.163.26.9 (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure) by Anthony Appleyard per CSD A7 due to no indication of significance or importance. WilliamH (talk) 19:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brody Kalwajtys[edit]

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

NN subject. Loukinho (talk) 19:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

how would you like me to make the article better? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brodeekay (talk • contribs) 19:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Wikipedia welcomes your collaborations and in order to make it a better article, reliable sources (books written by experts, government documents, peer-reviewed university research, world-class newspapers and magazines) must be added to the article. Remember that this is an encyclopedia: Articles without proper citation/sources must be deleted from wikipedia as the content cannot be verifiable and more than that, might not be encyclopedic. Most of the biographies articles are just quickly deleted falling into the Speedy Deletion criteria. This one was an exception as I recognize your efforts in mentioning sources to the article but again, they need to be reliable sources. If you have any other questions you can also leave me a message on my Talk Page. Thank you. -- Loukinho (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can post bios at http://www.Wikipopuli.com or http://wikibios.com  – ukexpat (talk) 19:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sorry, Brody, but none of the conditions in WP:CREATIVE or WP:BIO seem to apply to you. AnturiaethwrTalk 19:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN COI. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability is totally absent. I am a bit surprised this didn't get a CSD swat when it was first posted. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete So tagged, A7 ukexpat (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Orangemike; third speedy deletion thus far. Non-admin closure. AnturiaethwrTalk 19:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FOBR Boardies[edit]

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

Vanity page of a message board group, fails WP:NOTMYSPACE. CSD A7 probably doesn't apply, hence the AfD. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 19:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, it does (I need to stop taking this too far :p), but I'll let an uninvolved administrator take care of it. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 19:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - where did the article go? 64.107.182.4 (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - two of us think it is an attack page. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bollmanize[edit]

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

I'm listing this for deletion it seems to be essentially a dictionary definition of an obscure neologism. A Google search brought back zero results (not that that is in itself a sufficient test), and it doesn't appear in any of the dictionaries I have access to. If the description is true, it seems like it should be easy to source and/or provide an etymology, but there is neither in the article as of this listing. My only guesses as to what this really is are speculative and fail to assume good faith, so I'll leave it at that. Mycroft7 (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - WP:NFT --T-rex 19:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable neologism and dicdef. JuJube (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In addition to the above, this seems like a thinly veiled attack page against someone named Bollman. Were that any clearer, I'd recommend a G10 speedy. AnturiaethwrTalk 19:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Jones (songwriter)[edit]

Phil Jones (songwriter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC. PROD declined. Google finds 56 hits for 56 "Phil Jones" "The Art of War" and 26 hits for "Phil Jones" Summerhouse, none of those seems to be a reliable source. Amalthea (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; does not appear to meet just one criteria of WP:MUSIC IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 22:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

working on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoughGlamour (talk • contribs) 01:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 02:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

working on it!! christ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.242.66.249 (talk) 03:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 03:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Lamb[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since November 07. Sources barely even mention him. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 18:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sources more than "barely even" menton him. He dressed up as a rapping Santa, as described in Yo! Church Uses Pimped Out Santa On Rap Video. He is the only person quoted in Communities of Faith: Hey, egg hunters, look out below! and Easter eggs to rain from sky in Canton event. Is he a leading theological thinker? The references don't tell us that. Have reliable sources talked about him at length? Yes, so he's notable. --Eastmain (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - References seem to refer more specifically to the subject's church, rather than the subject himself, and would do better as establishing the notability of the church than the pastor. The pastor himself, however, while quoted, is not apparently a significant subject of the references. John Carter (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• With some regret, Delete. The pastor of a NN church is almost certainly NN too. It would be great if there could be more articles on notable churches, but the current view is that most are NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, a few mentions in novelty articles do not constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (emphasis mine), and there is nothing there which can be used as the basis for a biographical article anyway. --Stormie (talk) 01:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The references also argue in favor of the notability of the church, which means the argument "The pastor of a NN church is almost certainly NN too." doesn't apply here. --Eastmain (talk) 02:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:CSD#A1: Not enough context to identify subject. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Family Triolgy[edit]

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

The article might have been created as a test page by user Jaja9 (talk · contribs). The article's title is "Family Triolgy", the main body of the article says "Family Troligy" but I'm assuming the author means "Family Trilogy". A Google search for each one of those three search strings brings up no promising WP:RS leads to establish what the subject of the article really is or to expand it further. I pondered nominating it for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G2, mostly because the creating editor has really done nothing else other than testing, but I'm listing it here just to be safe. I'm OK with any admin speedy deleting it if they find it appropriate. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete either G2 or A1, so tagged. Sub-sub-stub with tpyos in it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 18:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete: Could find no evidence of such a film. DCEdwards¹⁹⁶⁶ 18:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no content --T-rex 19:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Bendik[edit]

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

Delete nn voice actor with a few roles, sufficiently nn that our article cannot tell us when or where she was born or whether she's even still alive. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not proven notable. Reywas92^Talk 21:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable actor. Her IMDb entry shows that she just hasn't reached fame yet. She is credited with "unknown episodes" in the three TV series she has been in. Furthermore, a Google News Archive search on her returns no results. Cunard (talk) 21:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; article consists of nothing but voiceover credits IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 22:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawing nomination to redirect to Season 7 of American Idol. Article appears to be a duplicate of Daniel Noriega, which redirects to the same place. Non-admin closure. TN‑X-Man 19:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Anthony Noriega[edit]

Daniel Anthony Noriega (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. I was tempted to nominate this for speedy, but thought I would bring it here for discussion. Article is about a singer who missed the final 12 on American Idol. If anything, page should be a redirect to the appropriate season of AI. TN‑X-Man 18:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Ciccone[edit]

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

Contested prod. Notability is not inherited (from his sister), and thus his only claim to fame is his book (ironically) about his sister. WP:ONEEVENT applies, I believe. RayAYang (talk) 18:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Tricky. The book is probably already a WP:BK slam dunk due to its press coverage, but I always say I'd rather see an article on an author than an article on a book (except in select cases), because an author can always write another book, but a book can almost never get another author. This might be one of the select cases where the book is wroth an article but the author isn't. --Dhartung | Talk 18:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Keep the article. The author and book have been talked about frequently in the media and are clearly objects of interest.206.41.234.41 (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He's put himself into the media spotlight in a big way. Had this been nominated two months ago, this might have been appropriate. If he vanishes off the face of the earth after the book furor dies down, take it back to AfD then, when we can take a longer view of his WP:N. Jclemens (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think he merits inclusion as an author of a best selling book. These things change, but as of this writing it's #15 overall on amazon. [22]. He and his book have been the subject of widespread international coverage. From Northern Ireland [23] to South Africa [24] to China[25], he's receieved significant coverage. (There are tons and tons of US and UK papers, as well as more international stories if you'd like to see for yourself at Google News) Did he get his notability by leeching off his sister? You bet. But now that he's been on Good Morning America, has a best selling memoir, and plenty of reviews about it, he's notable. Vickser (talk) 23:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He is the author of a best selling book. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He's got his own notability now. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 03:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Day By The River[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. Albums do not appear to be released on a major label. Only the second album, Fly, is listed on allmusic, and the label for this release, DBR, could indicate a self-published album. References are iffy. Only the ZDnet link could undoubtedly pass WP:RS. Personal sites and the subject's own sites certainly don't, and online 'zines are questionable. DarkAudit (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Self-released albums, insufficient reliable sources, fails WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 18:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --T-rex 19:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? DarkAudit (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is notable --T-rex 01:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Proof or it didn't happen If you don't intend to prove your claim, I suggest you go away and troll someone else. Your reputation precedes you. DarkAudit (talk) 04:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • What didn't happen? I think the fact that it is notable, is really the only reason anything is ever kept. --T-rex 13:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fine, then Take your games elsewhere. DarkAudit (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Accuse me of trolling? Yes, that proves the articles non-notability --T-rex 16:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 02:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. External links [26], [27] include coverage by independent secondary sources, so the article meets WP:N. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 16:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I took those into account before I posted the AfD. Two sources does not rise to the level of "significant" coverage. DarkAudit (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought they did, but then "significant" is a problematic word as it can be interpreted at opposite extremes ("extraordinary" versus "measurably above the noise level") and yet other interpretations are possible. I interpret it as "substantive", meaning that the source substatially (not incidentally) covers the subject. Could you please explain what you understand by "level of significant coverage"? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you go point by point through the guidelines set forth in WP:MUSIC, they fail to meet every guideline but one. (The production team does not truly meet "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable".) We're left with "multiple non-trivial published works". Of which we have but two. That only just meets the definition of "multiple". When all the other points are missed, two articles isn't substantial enough to make up for it. DarkAudit (talk) 17:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 03:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meggan Anderson[edit]

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

Contested prod. I believe fails WP:ENTERTAINER. A few guest roles on TV shows, and most of the references do not devote any significant number of electrons to covering her. RayAYang (talk) 18:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete for now although her role in this film Spark Riders, might make it ok depending on how notable that fim is. Buc (talk) 21:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 06:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under G12 for blatant copyright infringement. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic Temperature Compensator[edit]

Automatic Temperature Compensator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced article, which is read like promotional material. Probably violates also copyright policy as at least part of it is copied from this page. Beagel (talk) 17:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete: Copyright violation of [28]. I tagged it as such. --Amalthea (talk) 22:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 International Whaling Commission. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 14:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sites of International Whaling Commission annual meetings[edit]

Sites of International Whaling Commission annual meetings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Don't see why this requires a whole article. Also, the IWC occasionally has 'special meetings' as well, which aren't included here. Incidentally, it IS rubbish as the list is partial (only since 1969) -- believe me, it was much worse before I made some substantial edits! Anyway, it just seems to me it's ENTIRELY unnecessary to have an article on this non-topic Jonathanmills (talk) 17:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to International Whaling Commission article. Yeah, it's a list I suppose, but I think it would work better in the article rather than a stand-alone.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge unless expanded to note more information than the location, e.g. major agreements reached. --Dhartung | Talk 18:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. Beagel (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and I would suggest making that a two or three column table. 64.107.182.4 (talk) 19:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Just to point out that a) there is already a subsection in the IWC article entitled 'Annual meetings of the IWC' (which is where this article was linked from), and that it contains a smaller but far more attractive, six-column table, and b) while I agree with Dhartung that it COULD be valid to have an article on IWC meetings which contained more information (although I don't happen to think it's worthwhile myself), just to emphasise that the title of this article is 'SITES of IWC annual meetings' so is by definition just about the locations. Also it is only about *annual* meetings, but the IWC occasionally has intersessional 'special' meetings, so this seems ridiculously over-categorised. Anyway, that's the reasons I think it should be deleted. Thanks, guys, for all your feedback. Jonathanmills (talk) 11:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Barnes (actor)[edit]

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

Child actor from the 70s took part on his debut film, its sequel, and some tv series episodes (including a hollyday special). Seems to fail WP:ENTERTAINER (correct me if I'm wrong). Article was probably created by subject himself (see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Chris_Barnes_.28actor.29). Damiens.rf 16:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. Clearly meets notability guidelines. Nomination stems from dispute regarding spam links (which I agree with), but this doesn't mean article should be deleted. Article was created over three years ago (March 2005) by another user. Tan ǀ 39 16:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi, Tan. I was cautious enough to say "correct me if I'm wrong" in regard to being wrong about the article not fulfilling WP:ENTERTAINER. After re-revising that criteria, I still don't see which of those criterion this bio would met. If you can point me that (or point any other problem with my reasoning) I would be glad to revoke this nomination.

  You're right that the spam dispute was what brought my attention to this article. But this deletion debate should be decided on the bio's own merits. So, why should we have a bio on this 70's child actor if he didn't "had significant roles in multiple notable films", he didn't have "a large fan base or a significant "cult" following", nor had him "made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment."? --Damiens.rf 17:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you have to realize that we're discussing a guideline here, not a policy. I'd say his acting resume makes him at least borderline, and the article does link to a reference where the subject was the primary target of significant, reliable coverage. In light of your arguments, however, I'm removing the "speedy" part of my !vote to help foster more debate. Tan ǀ 39 17:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit I thought that was a policy, not just a guideline. My fault on this regard. --Damiens.rf 17:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Nomination follows an editing dispute that appears to have started yesterday. I'm not sure if this is covered by [WP:POINT], but I don't see any reason for deletion. Major role in a major film from 1976, and notability isn't lost even with the passage of 30 years. I will acknowledge that [WP:ENTERTAINER] refers to "significant roles" in multiple notable films; the guideline for a notable film is that it got full-length reviews by 2 or more nationally known critics. The rest is open for debate, I suppose. What's significant? How much is multiple? Significant is not defined, although I would imagine that being mentioned in the opening credits is more significant than being listed as "Guy #2" in the closing credits, or not credited at all. The Bad News Bears got reviewed. The 1977 sequel got reviews too... horrible, "go see Star Wars instead" reviews, but still reviews. Nominator suggests a strict interpretation of the notability guideline, although I think that the vast majority of articles about actors would be gone if it's interpreted to mean that one has not only be in several films, but to be a star in those films as well. Mandsford (talk) 17:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if it's common practice to have articles on One-hit wonder actors, then this afd should be closed, the bio kept, and the guideline updated to reflect consensus. --Damiens.rf 17:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The article lists seven movies/TV appearances, not one... and IMDB lists nine. At least two were major picutres, The Bad News Bears and The Bad News Bears in Breaking Training. Seven, nine, and even two are all numbers greater than one. Therefore, he's not a "one-hit wonder" actor. Maybe a "two-hit wonder"... but now that you mention it, what is the specific guideline that says "one-hit wonders" are not noteworthy?--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article, just as well as imdb and just as well as this nomination, lists appearances in 1 major movie and its sequel, and 7 one-episode appearances on tv-series. That is to say he's only notable for his character on the bears movie, and this is a one-hit-wonder on my criteria (actually not, because he was never a "wonder"). Anyway, it's becoming clear on the discussion on this page that being a 70's one-hit is enough to deserve a bio on Wikipedia. In regard to the "specific guideline", I never really mentioned one existed. --Damiens.rf 18:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Huh? So if Sean Connery had only played one character--James Bond, then we should delete the article about him because he only played one character multiple times? What about Desmond Llewelyn?? Moses Harry Horwitz, Andrew Louis Feinberg, and Jerome Lester Horwitz each made careers out of playing the same characters (Moe, Larry, and Curly)! I would say that playing the same character in two major movies is two events, not one: especially since the movies were released over a year apart.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • In these cases, the notability of the character itself makes a difference. Everybody likes winning disputes, but comparing James Bond (character) or Three Stooges to "Tanner Boyle" was a little bit over the top. --Damiens.rf 20:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability is not temporary. He was notable in 1976, he's notable today.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment / Proposal: Since his notability is completely dependent on the "bears movies"'s notability, and he seems to have never had (in 30 years!) any independent coverage outside of that movie's context, isn't it inappropriate to have a standalone bio article instead of just mention him on the movie's articles? --Damiens.rf 18:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response Actually, no. See WP:NTEMP for details... but in a nutshell, that would be like saying that Abraham Lincoln hasn't done anything since his death on April 15, 1865 that we should merge it into President of the United States. Okay, that's a major stretch on significance, but it's the same concept.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Longstanding general precedent is for actors with at least two significant film roles to deserve articles, regardless of coverage (which would be difficult to get online for the 1970s in any case). Notability does not expire. --Dhartung | Talk 18:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep has two strong credits to his name. 64.107.182.4 (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment First of all, this is the result of an unrelated dispute regarding Fair use issues and the fact that I agreed with Ryan_Postlethwaite that Damiens.rf's use of twinkle was inappropriate. He came to this article to "get revenge" and to intimidate.

Edit: He also trashed The_Color_of_Friendship, Brandon Cruz's article and Chris Barnes' home town of Oradell, New Jersey. He should be blocked indefinitely for this.

• Second, I admit I'm the author of a site about Chris Barnes. Damiens.rf contends that this is a WP:COI issue, when in fact, the guideline that covers an instance like this is WP:EL#ADV, Advertising and conflicts of interest, which he never cited or mentioned. He's just doing slash and burn editing to cause another editor grief.

• Third, how is it that you, Damiens.rf, know so much about Chris Barnes? Why are you able to say with such certainty that he is a one-hit wonder or that he hasn't even attained cult status? I could show you the web stats if they were any of your business. Where's your research?

• Fourth, the email link is, admittedly, "a Google thang," but your assumption made me laugh.

• And last of all, since this is a WP:EL#ADV issue - for now, at least - your use of the term "spam," Tan, and your threat, "Cbsite has a long block history; any more spam violations and it will probably get longer" are entirely inappropriate.

• BTW, I vote to Delete the article.

Cbsite (talk) 01:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not a vote-counting. What's your rationale for deleting the article? --Damiens.rf 03:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The link you added persistently was inappropriate. You do have a block history for disruptive editing. And the threat stands; add that link again and I'll block you for disruptive editing. Whether or not you think this threat is inappropriate is irrelevant; you've been warned accordingly. Feel free to complain about it, however. Tan ǀ 39 14:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Attitude! Cbsite (talk) 00:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article needs drastic reworking, but the subject is clearly notable based on his work. Alansohn (talk) 03:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Alansohn. Radioinfoguy (talk) 03:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 06:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic Process Management[edit]

Dynamic Process Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contest prod; the only source is the subject of the article, reads like an advertisement/biography, does not explain the notability of the topic. Maxim_(talk) 16:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No evidence of notability. Presumably spam for Hammer & Co. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's exactly one hit on google looking for "Dynamic Process Management" "Ray Blackman": [29]. Not notable.
  I don't see what that Hammer company has to do with the article by the way.--Amalthea (talk) 22:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per unanimity of respondents. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 01:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monte Snavely[edit]

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

Non-notable. Already appears on List of mayors of Compton, California and the current article adds no new notable information. Renee (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to List of mayors of Compton, California. I would examine those other entries closely per WP:POLITICIAN, as the city is a bit short of the 100,000 threshold I prefer for mayors, who are generally considered short of the guideline. --Dhartung | Talk 18:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - fails WP:POLITICIAN. 64.107.182.4 (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John McSweeney (martial artist)[edit]

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

Notability, 6 months tagged as unsourced and for notability non added. G test inconclusive but not promising Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep well-known Kenpoist but lacking in sources. JJL (talk) 16:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, shoy (reactions) 16:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A google books search reveals several potential sources. I do believe this needs to be brought into line with WP:BLP soon but since I see nothing especially controversial in it now, it's not dire. Mango juice^talk 17:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep a la JJL. Not sure if WP:BLP applies: he is not alive. I cleaned the copyright material from the article but did not find any strong notability source. Does anyone have information about his book? jmcw (talk) 22:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 03:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. McSweeney is definitely notable in the Martial Arts.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Choson[edit]

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

All that this article says is that in 2004 a (redlinked) North Korean defector proposed that, if the North Korean government were deposed, its successor might be called the Republic of Choson, a name taken from an earlier Korean state (see Joseon). The article has recently been tagged as a hoax; I don't think it's that, but no sources are quoted, there is no indication that the proposal made any impact, and the whole thing seems (a) hypothetical and (b) unimportant - a matter of words only. In November 2004 the article was redirected to Joseon, but in February 2006 it was resuscitated; not a lot has happened to it since. The redirect does not seem appropriate as Joseon was not a republic. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Never heard of it. According to this article, it's an idea made up by one defector. Not notable. Lehoiberri (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is silly. It's a "proposed replacement" for North Korea. Hey, talk to Kim Jong-il about it, and if you can get him to agree, let's see what we can do about those nuclear weapons. Let's propose some replacements for Great Britain while we're at it-- "Republic of Albion" sounds good. Mandsford (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 23:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If this defector is notable, write an article for him, but not this. Everyking (talk) 09:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep Pointy nom by SPA. non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 18:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Nielsen[edit]

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

Relatively unknown Canadian political figure. Fails WP: Notability. Chicagoland2 (talk) 15:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep before the WP:Snow falls - subject was deputy prime minister. This is nominators only contribution. Suspect joke or POV pushing -Hunting dog (talk) 16:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per Hunting dog - a nonsense nomination. JohnCD (talk) 16:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep I predict a blizzard...Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 16:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep and block the nominator as a vandalism-only account. --Eastmain (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong and speedy keep I hate to be rude, but this is the single most absurd AfD nomination I've seen to date. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Menno de Ruijter[edit]

Menno de Ruijter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Article's subject appears to be notable for one event only. TN‑X-Man 16:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, textbook WP:ONEEVENT. If sources exist should be covered briefly in the gameshow article. --Dhartung | Talk 18:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:ONEEVENT seems to fit here. 64.107.182.4 (talk) 19:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, okay with recreation if the article's well-written. Wizardman 03:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lesley Pike[edit]

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

The return of a once-Speedy Deleted article. Fails WP:RS and I would question whether it passes WP:MUSIC. Too much of the text reads like marketing collateral. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Major revision: I can't tell if it fails or passes WP:MUSIC, but if it does pass, it needs to be re-written. Leonard^(Bloom) 15:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Most of the text was a copyright violation of [30].
  I have no opinion otherwise - there's a bit of name dropping going on [31][32], but nothing to really establish notability. --Amalthea (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There are six sources: youtube, face book, two from her personal website, and the other two appear to be broken links. If there are no secondary sources, then fails WP:N. 64.107.182.4 (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Tending towards Keep although it needs much improvement. She has released 3 albums and has toured/is touring nationally. Two Google News results: [33] & [34]. Seems like she is currently undertaking a substantial national tour, which may be sufficient to meet criterion 4 of WP:MUSIC#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles. Further coverage of varying quality, from the first few pages of google hits: [35], [36], [37]. --Michig (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 21:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOLcat Translator Project[edit]

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

Non-notable website (not to be confused with the LOLCat Bible Translation Project). A mention on a blog does not meet WP:WEB. Contested speedy, bringing it here.  Sandstein  15:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Amusing thought it is, fails WP:N ukexpat (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I would say speedily under WP:WEB TrulyBlue (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nn --T-rex 19:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Lolcat --T-rex 18:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Totally childish. I gave it one of my web pages and it turned it into gibberish. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering what 'lolspeak' is, a webpage of gibberish sounds like a complete success :P. -- saberwyn 01:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:WEB, has already been deleted via PROD, and I see no new sources presented, reliable or otherwise. Resolute 20:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleet: Non-notable websiet. translation provided by LOLcat Translator Project DCEdwards¹⁹⁶⁶ 20:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree that is not a very well known website but some of the people that suggested this article to be deleted seem not to be knowledgable on the subject or not having read the actual article carefuly. In particular, RHaworth claims that "Totally childish. I gave it one of my web pages and it turned it into gibberish." Well he either gave to the website a page not written in English language or he does not understand lolcat speak which is the language that is used by thousands (if not millions) of enthusiasts many of whom visit every day icanhascheezburger.com to chat in that slang/lingo/dialect or whatever you want to call it. In respect to the claim made by Resolute the article actually has new sources this is why I put it up again, I wouldn't otherwise! :) I had accepted the previous deletion due to lack of secondary or triatary references of the article 2 months ago. But I recently came across a review about that website so I decided to update the original article to cite/include this third party source and I put it up again. I understand that the changes might be small and therefore "invisible" but they are there. Furthermore, I just tried searching for "lolcat translator" in google and yahoo and in google slangaholic.com is the 7th result while in yahoo.com is the 2nd one. Considering that there are more than ten websites attempting to provide lolcat translation services this is a considerable ranking reflecting popularity. And for those that might be wondering why I chose to write an article about this particular one, the reason is that this is the translator I am using and so it happens that I know some more things about it and its quirks and thus I feel comfortable on writting an article that might help people learn something about it. EvansGeorge (talk) 01:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Im in Wikypeedia, deleetn ur unsorced non-notable articul! translation NOT provided by LOLcat Translator Project because it didn't work when I tried itReyk _YO! 01:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is working for me! "It iz wurkin foar meh! I iz in yur Wikipedia, deletin yur unsourceded non-notable article!" translation provided by LOLcat Translator Project 79.72.13.109 (talk) 03:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete LOLCATZ may b notable dis websiet izn'. itz goted noes reliable 3rd party sourcez. --Deadly∀ssassin 10:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right. I still hold the other views as expressed on the block of text I posted above, but after reading the Wikipedia:Notability (web) page which is more specific to the subject of this article than the general Wikipedia:Notability one on which I based the update to the article and my previous commend, I agree that the 3rd party source referenced by this article does not fulfill the reliability criteria (as of Wikipedia:Reliable sources). Therefore I change my vote and agree that for this reason this article should be deleted, but I would like to ask prermission that if in the future reliable 3rd party sources become available me or others can retry to recreate an improved copy of it. Thx foar teh feedbax! EvansGeorge (talk) 12:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 03:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Academic Championship[edit]

National Academic Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I have worked with this article on and off for a few months. There are really no reliable sources to cover this article. The article has been greatly pared down, until an an editor asked why it existed in the absence of reliable sources. Searches turned up blogs, message boards, and the company's rather biased home page. Article was deprodded. Fails WP:RS. LonelyBeacon (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep with revisions. This deletion campaign has arisen over the "unreliability" of the criticism (since first-hand reporting and falling attendance don't appear to be valid... but that's another story), but there is still significant information on the page that is neutral and undisputed (rules, basic history, champions). These pieces of information are "reliable" - a search on Factiva reveals a newspaper article on each national champion since at least 1990, for example. --Bdsmith (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot vouch for others, but please do not accuse me of a bad faith nomination (which is what you are indirectly doing here, whether it is intended or not). This criticism deletion may have been the impetus for generating discussion, but I can assure you that it is not the reason for this AfD. There may be those who are upset about a critique being thrown out, but when it came down to it, there was a question as to how an article can exist without the presence of reliable source written about the subject. The sources regarding past champions can be discussed after secondary sources written about the subject of this article can be found. My concern is that there aren't any, and another editor (I believe the one who deleted the critique) even noted that in the absence of those sources, the standing of the article is shaky. I searched, and could find no supporting secondary sources. LonelyBeacon (talk) 17:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To counter your reliable sources, I come from a town of 17,000 that hosts an annual spelling bee. Every single champion over the past 40 years has had an article in the local papers. That does not confer notability to the spelling bee. If the bee itself were the subject of articles and such, then the spelling bee makes an assertion of notability. The articles you describe assert the notability of the teams involved, and could be used to build a case to support their claims of a championship, but as I read WP:N, the sources you describe are not enough. LonelyBeacon (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete if no independent sources on the championship exist (apart from random local reports of school teams winning it). --Dhartung | Talk 18:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep' Some of those associated with the article assert that no sources can be found. I find that extremely strange, but I myself am not in a position to find them. If sufficient stories have been written about winners of the contest, they are notable for winning the contest--in which case the contest is also notable. DGG (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no secondary sources. DGG, perhaps its sounds strange, but that doesn't mean it isn't true. As LonelyBeacon noted, articles on winners are not secondary sources. There are many articles on schools/students winning non-notable conttests. Without secondary sources, there is no notability. 64.107.182.4 (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia policy. WP:RS states that "if an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Since sources for this article would consist of the tournament's own page, message boards (the main hub of quiz bowl communication) and a quiz bowl specific Wiki, none of which would be reliable, the site must be deleted per Wikipedia policy. --Leftsaidfred (talk) 02:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as reliable sources cannot be found. Shawn Pickrell (talk) 13:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia policy. The issue at hand is that the topic of quiz bowl in general does not have sources that meet Wikipedia's standards of reliability. Are there hundreds of intelligent people from whom you'd be able to get perfectly accurate information? Sure. Do the supposedly reliable sources that quiz bowl Wiki articles consist of anything more than interviews with a small sample of those people, interspersed with uninformed perusal of a few websites? Regrettably. I don't think the participants will ever consider the "scholarship" written on quiz bowl, if ever there is any, to be an accurate portrayal of the activity. Other issue, DGG: it's horribly circular to say that the competition is notable because to win a competition is notable, and things with notable winners are notable. If I hold a looks-like-me contest in my backyard and win it, by your logic I am notable (and deserve an article) since I've won something, and the contest is notable because I won it. To establish that this competition is notable, you'll have to find a lot more besides "it has been won." Everyday847 (talk) 19:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

as I worded it, I do not think it circular. If winning a competition is notable, and this can be shown by a great number of good RS media references to people winning t hat competion, that proves that the competition in turn is important. If it werent, nobody would bother mentioning that people won it. DGG (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we operate from the presumption of inclusion, that things are notable unless proven otherwise? I don't think so. Your idea of "good" media is kind of silly, because it's not like these pieces are great journalism; it's the same formula of team x won competition y, let's interview the contestants, done. That literally does make every competition notable, since when almost anything happens there's an article written about it somewhere. This reminds me a little of Euthyphro--is that which is pious so because it is loved by the gods, or because of some innate quality? I think that there ought to be external criteria for whether something is notable--we shouldn't say that it's notable because people have noted it. 68.162.156.58 (talk) 02:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and mark with citations needed. Just because you have not found reliable sources yet does not mean none exist. dml (talk) 00:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are, technically, right in saying that there's no implication there. Hypothetically, there could be sources. But ask anyone involved in the community: there are no sources that satisfy Wikipedia policy. Keeping "citation needed" is a fraud; it suggests that people are trying to find them (or that they could potentially exist) when really neither is the case. If we had a "unsourceable" tag, or a "rank speculation" tag, then sure--but the idea of "citation needed" suggests "otherwise accurate, or of some kind of determinant truth-value, but not sourced," which is not at all the correct impression.68.162.156.58 (talk) 02:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A 2 minute lexis-nexis search turns up

St. Petersburg Times (Florida) June 28, 1991, Friday, City Edition Bloomingdale "brain team' is winner despite losses BYLINE: MICHELLE JONES, SECTION: BRANDON TIMES; Pg. 3, LENGTH: 477 words, DATELINE: BRANDON

Newsweek July 2, 1984, UNITED STATES EDITION A Different Sort of Sport BYLINE: DENNIS A. WILLIAMS with DIANNE H. McDONALD in New York, BARBARA BURGOWER in Dallas, TENLEY-ANN JACKSON in Los Angeles and MARGO C. POPE in Jacksonville SECTION: EDUCATION; Pg. 72. LENGTH: 1718 words

and a weak USA TODAY June 15, 1992, Monday, FINAL EDITION ALABAMA SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 8A LENGTH: 3863 words DATELINE: TUSCALOOSA

* Strong Keep dml (talk) 18:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See, I lexisnexis the phrase "national academic championship", and here are my results:

1. Washington academic team is tops

Tulsa World (Oklahoma), June 11, 2008 Wednesday, News; Pg. A5, 232 words, ANDREA EGER World Staff Writer

2. Middle school to compete nationally

Tulsa World (Oklahoma), May 29, 2008 Thursday, News; Pg. A8, 380 words, NORA FROESCHLE World Staff Writer

3. E-Town Quiz Team 2Nd At States, Goes To Nationals

Lancaster New Era (Pennsylvania), May 7, 2008 Wednesday, B; Pg. 7, 401 words, Robyn Meadows

That gives us what, a thousand words of primary sources? And here's an excerpt from the first article. I don't know what you can do with the following, but if you can make an encyclopedic article out of it, props:

"The teams were asked to identify the designer of a pair of pants being modeled in a photo and were given the clue that the designer had recently died. Rogers correctly answered, 'Yves Saint Laurent.' 'The other kids were like, 'Huh?' And the other team didn't have a clue," McGinnis said. "Jordan's more into current events and that kind of stuff.'"

I'd like to reiterate my call to delete this article since it is impossible (believe me! I've been part of this community for years now!) to find any secondary scholarship, or any primary scholarship better than a few hometown newspapers noting that a team went there. (I also searched ebsco, which might actually contain, you know, some secondary scholarship (if only in the form of uninformed article-writers editorializing), and I found nothing with the phrase "National Academic Championship." Eventually I found an article on "Quiz Bowl" but it was essentially an interest piece about the coach of Byram Hill's team and the "superstar" he discovered in some kid named Nate Mattison. It's also bad enough that it describes quiz bowl as basically team Jeopardy. Everyday847 (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might increase the timespan search for your references, just because there is little in the past two years doesn't mean there isn't more in previous years (also many print publications are not in online sources pre-1995). Granted, there are probably no books on the subject, and the individual articles may be weak, but a collection of lots of individual articles can easily be used to verify the various facts (format, it exists, so and so won, it was once on TV as Texaco Star National Academic Challenge (which I think alone provides sufficient notoriety, someone just needs to look up TV Guide back in 1990 or whenever)). Also, try looking for "Chip Beall" in your digging. dml (talk) 16:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Um .... could you elaborate on the exact nature of those articles. Just because they show up on a search does not make them secondary sources. We already have numerous other sources about teams winning the tournament that do not qualify as secondary. Just because they show up on a search does not make them secondary sources. LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No hyperlinks to the articles are possible as far as I know, they are pre-Internet, and they are copyrighted or I would include the text, but you can find them in Lexis-Nexis if you have access (most universities do). The Newsweek article is especially on point and detailed, describing the tournament, the others are basically winners of X, which I think is still valuable, but not as good. dml (talk) 19:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC). See also [38] for additional links, not optimal, but from reliable sources. dml (talk) 20:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. The Newsweek article could be an article that would work, but without being able to see it, I can't comment on it. The others not only aren't secondary sources, but prompt a concern I have in doing searches of this nature. A few of the hits that came up had nothing to do with this tournament, and instead dealt with a national collegiate tournament for historically African-American schools sponsored by Honda. These were not among the sources that you mentioned. LonelyBeacon (talk) 08:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm not sure we are allowed to operate under assumed reliability. There are several editors, experts in national quizbowl, who have searched for reliable secondary sources to meet WP:RS. They have all consistently turned up negative. I welcome and encourage anyone to find neutral, secondary sources to support this article, but please do not simply assume that they must exist. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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