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

The result was bold redirect to Mongoose (bicycles). Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 00:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mongoose skate boards[edit]

Mongoose skate boards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Either a speedy A1, a speedy A7, or just general cruft. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 23:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Possibly merge to Mongoose (bicycles), as that's the company that seems to be referenced here? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 00:12, 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 by DGG per WP:CSD#A1 (no context). —David Eppstein (talk) 01:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yu gi oh abridged series[edit]

Yu gi oh abridged series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

no notability Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Wanna know my story?}/ _{Share yours with me!} 23:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• A1 Very little context, maybe a hoax? So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 23:43, 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 delete per WP:CSD#G1 (patent nonsense). —David Eppstein (talk) 01:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harriet Fields[edit]

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

self nomination BIO Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Wanna know my story?}/ _{Share yours with me!} 23:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy --T-rex 23:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy all the way. I would've pounced on this with a CSD like a hobo on a porkchop.Rob Banzai (talk) 23:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Article has since been re-created and re-written More consensus should be reached. User:WPNman01:32, 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 speedily deleted, WP:CSD#A7. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Twitchen[edit]

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

self promotion Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Wanna know my story?}/ _{Share yours with me!} 23:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• A1 Very little context or A7, non-notable bio. tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 23:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy this badboy. Rob Banzai (talk) 23:24, 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. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Busbee[edit]

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

I've tried to do what I could as far as sources for this article, but aside from a few shaky web interviews I don't see much of note. It's nearly impossible to verify anything at all apart from his religious beliefs and some name-dropping. I don't think this qualifies for a speedy because it does assert notability, it doesn't seem to make any contentious claims about the subject, and there are (arguably) a couple of sources. I wouldn't be opposed to recreation of the article if and when notability can be better established through reliable sources. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 22:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Notability is not based on the number of references, but that there are references that focus on the articles subject. AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's based on significant coverage by multiple, reliable sources. I'm the one who added the two that are already there, and even I can admit they're pretty weak. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 01:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hello! i am mike busbee. this article is a inaccurate in its details and poorly represents the totally of my career. i would kindly like to request is deletion. thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.145.243 (talk) 08:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete - please don't forget that sources that establish notability must be secondary sources. The two references (both interviews) are not secondary sources, so notability has not been established. Remember WP:BLP, Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. If I were the nominator I would probably have prodded this. Cheers! --Samuel Tan 07:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources are preferred for notability, but not required for verifiability. Published interviews are sufficient for BLP. If they weren't, I'd have speedy deleted the article.

I don't use prod. I've been against it from the start. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 14:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't sources that prove notability need to be secondary sources? Hence no secondary sources can be found means not notable, no? :) -Samuel Tan 04:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, don't get me wrong - you're 100% right about the notability part, as far as I can tell. I was just saying that's why I didn't speedy it (because they're good enough to avoid BLP problems, and non-notability isn't a CSD). Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 05:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh you were talking about why you didn't speedy delete oops! Knock my head the next time you see me *grin* -Samuel Tan 05:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, other wise we can merge to similar articles.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 01:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• very weak keep Generally interviews are reliable sources and they indicate that the individual in question has been noted by the general media (which is part of the point of the notability criterion). JoshuaZ (talk) 12:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - doesn't appear to be independent coverage at this time and where the subject requests deletion and the notability is in question, I see no reason why not. Shell ^babelfish 08:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hang on, where did the subject request deletion? I don't see that int he discussion at all. JoshuaZ (talk) 12:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well right up above as 75.84.145.243 and in an OTRS ticket 2008071810023147. Shell ^babelfish 12:56, 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. 18:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Devoted[edit]

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

This was an independent release that got, as far as I can tell, no coverage. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 22:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 22:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable independent release, didn't chart, no singles were released. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 23:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - album appears to have gotten some attention well after its original release --T-rex 23:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Where? I don't see any. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 00:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• more or less world wide (i'm not saying it was huge attention, just enough to be notable) --T-rex 01:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It sold like, three copies. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 03:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• *counts on fingers* Her Mum, her Grandma..........who bought the third one???????  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 03:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you seeing that? Personally I'm seeing the album mentioned in almost every article on her during her time on American Idol --T-rex 14:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable album of cover songs, merge to Kristy Lee Cook if anything is worth keeping. AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Kristy Lee Cook per WP:MUSIC#Albums: "...articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article".  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 03:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom; non-notable album. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge. This article seems to only talk about eprsonal friends, nothing about Wiki contents.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 01:21, 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 --JForget 00:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mordechai C. Albrecht[edit]

Mordechai C. Albrecht (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Oh boy! Created by User:Ezidafoundation (definitive conflict of interest, as subject is listed as member). Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 22:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• A7 Doesn't even assert notability. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 22:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy update There's a hangon on the page now. The AfD is older than the speedy. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 22:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Google scholar shows zero publications for this professor. Pburka (talk) 23:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible hoax, in fact. I can't find any evidence of an Ezida Foundation. Pburka (talk) 23:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's probably not a hoax, the author told me that their prof and foundation try to avoid publicity. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 00:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless someone can find something real, but it asserts some degree of possible notability, so it isn't a speedy. DGG (talk) 01:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no results on Google or Google News Archive for this person. Nor can I find anything about "Ezida Foundation." I strongly suspect this is a hoax. But even if it wasn't, this person definitely fails WP:BIO because there are no reliable sources about him. Cunard (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• A7 Speedy delete as a WP:HOAX. The only Albrecht connected to Ezida on Google was Albrecht Goetze a respected scholar who published papers in the 1940's and 1950s. see here This person is not him. Artene50 (talk) 09:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; totally no source.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 00:41, 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 Speedy deleted per CSD G3.(non-admin closure) - Icewedge (talk) 23:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jamel Odom[edit]

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

Appears to be a hoax, the article claims that he is "Director of National Intelligence" but a Google search for +"Jamel Odom" +"Director of National Intelligence" brings up 0 results, Google searches for his name and the names of the colleges he supposedly went too also show up null. - Icewedge (talk) 22:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:HOAX. A Google News Archive search for this individual returns no results. Cunard (talk) 22:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• G3 Hoax indeed. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 22:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Article appears to have been speedied, this AfD needs to be closed. Edward321 (talk) 23:33, 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 delete per G11 -- it was a disputed speedy, not a PROD. Advertising even if contested. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sinlesstouch[edit]

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

Created by User:Sinlesstouch (shares the name of the article, conflict of interest?) G11 tag with hangon appended currently on article, bringing to AfD. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 22:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close No need to take it to AfD even if there is a hangon tag already on. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 22:16, 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. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CountryReports.org[edit]

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

Created by User:Emulateme (conflict of interest as owner). Possibly insufficient notability. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 22:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Spam --T-rex 23:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOT SPAM. This is a simple corporate history page of which Wikipedia has countless similar profiles of. Corporate histories are acceptable within Wikipedia. It lacks marketing pitches and promotions commonly found with SPAM. Article even cites and refers to competitive sites. Additional Notability can be provided.--Emulateme (talk) 00:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable web site. Site owned by Emulate Me LLC, which happens to be the name of the creator of this article. The article sites no sources other than for what sites people visit next. AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete spamvertisement. I won't speedy or otherwise delete as I've just blocked the creator for spam despite previous warnings and a block for same, but there's no evidence the company or website is notable per WP:CORP/WP:WEB TravellingCari 02:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable, can't find any mentions at all in secondary sources, let alone significant coverage in reliable sources. Somno (talk) 01:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not for commercial or advertisement.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 01:08, 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 Speedy deleted by me. The article cannot survive AfD. It was nominated for speedy after AfD tag was removed. - Richard Cavell (talk) 02:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

War Machine (IWC)[edit]

War Machine (IWC) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Is there any context to this? Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 22:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• (speedy) Delete This looks like a CSD:A1 or A7 candidate, but in any case, should be deleted. gnfnrf (talk) 22:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• A1 Not enough context. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 22:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete purely nonsensical. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:33, 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 (non-admin closure, article deleted by Zedla per G12) --T-rex 23:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sea of Japan naming dispute since Japan invate Korea.[edit]

Sea of Japan naming dispute since Japan invate Korea. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Anyone speak Japanese or Korean? I can't even understand the article! Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 22:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as G12. I've tagged the article as being a copyvio of http://kr.ks.yahoo.com/service/ques_reply/ques_view.html?dnum=HAC&qnum=5813299. Cunard (talk) 22:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• G12 as copyvio per Cunard. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 22:03, 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. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naked Truth Mixtape[edit]

Naked Truth Mixtape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Banganyn Remyxes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A mix-tape is not an album. In addition the tone of this article is feverishly fan oriented. Rob Banzai (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep probably notable enough, but it needs to be rewritten from the ground up. Themfromspace (talk) 21:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's been stubified, but mixtapes still aren't notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 22:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Also delete Banganyn Remyxes, a non-notable mixtape that's related. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 22:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Mixtapes are not generally notable (Wikipedia:Music#Albums) and in this case I see no exception. Ros0709 (talk) 22:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Both - nn mixtape --T-rex 23:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums, non-notable mixtapes.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 04:00, 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 delete. Notability hasn't been established by those arguing to keep. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Project Powder[edit]

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

Unreleased game, still in beta, non-notable. ukexpat (talk) 21:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as noted above. Rob Banzai (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I object to this as why would there be fansites made for this game if this game is "not-notable"? There is already a link posted linking to an interview by onRPG, which I think is highly notable. I disagree on the fact that this article should not be posted on the wikipedia. Windrider07 (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Fan sites aren't ever reliable. Furthermore, the interview is the only reliable source, and doesn't seem to be exclusively about the game. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 21:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I object as well (obviously - I created the page). The game's in beta currently, but will probably be live in less than a month. Also, how can a game that already has two fansites be "non-notable?" Ceridian (Ceridian) 21:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Fan sites are not reliable sources, it's a simple as that.  –  ukexpat (talk) 21:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the single interview isn't enough to meet requirements for notability. -- Whpq (talk) 12:37, 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 Keep. While it started with some deletes, it is clearly heading to a snowball situation. --JForget 00:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin-Wallace Medal[edit]

Darwin-Wallace Medal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Not enough notability and per WP:NOT#INFO. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 21:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose bad faith nomination following decline of speedy and prod. DuncanHill (talk) 21:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad faith nomination? Are you serious? How do you judge whether it's good faith or bad faith? Ever heard of Wikipedia:Assume good faith? - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 21:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unnotable award and article is pretty much nothing but a copy of the list from the award site. At best, merge short description of award into Linnean Society of London. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Diligent Terrier and Collectonian are acting as a tag-team on this, the Linnean Society is the world's foremost biological society, and this medal is for major advances in evolutionary biology (one of the most significant and notable areas of the development of science over the last 150 years). DuncanHill (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think your allegation of "meatpuppetry" is pretty hilarious, actually. You provide no evidence for your allegation whatsoever. It seems to be used as a tactic to confuse the closing admin and get the discussion more dramatic, taking it away from the original topic. Just for the record, "meatpuppetry" is usually also refers to when the editors know each other in real life. And any accusation, whether sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry should be accompanied by proper evidence. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 21:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I will note vote as I wrote the article, but can people please look at Linnean Society, noting that it "is the world's premier society for the study and dissemination of taxonomy and natural history". Thanks. Also, can I explain that unlike Linnean Medal, it has only been awarded a few times, but the medalists are very well known in their fields. I am not a dog (talk) 21:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — No evidence of notability. doña macy [talk] 21:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Collectonian and WP:N. After quick search on Google, I have concluded that Darwin-Wallace Medal has extremely small impact and does not merit its own article. Merge would be more appropriate IceUnshattered^{[ t | c ]} 21:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note--and, to "I am not a dog", I think it's the medal, not the people it was awarded to, that matters here. IceUnshattered^{[ t | c ]} 21:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Linnean Society and preserve redirect. Ghits aren't everything, but in a Google search, I didn't find independent sources. I found the Linnean Society, I found winners' universities issuing press releases, and I found blogs. In the absence of coverage elsewhere, it fails the blanket notability criterion of significant coverage. That said, if independent sources are located, I would reconsider whether it should be kept outright, and I don't see any reason it shouldn't be mentioned briefly (without the list of winners) at the Linnean Society's article. —C.Fred (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lists of winners are in fact one of the key features of the pages for these awards. Among other things, they provide proof for the notability of any individual winner who is challenged, and a list of people for whom additional articles need to be written. DGG (talk) 03:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - if you'd Googled just a bit further, you'd have come across references in Science (unfortunately only for subscribers), Richard Dawkins' official web site, and... --Technopat (talk) 00:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The post on Dawkins' web site is in a forum, which leaves it short of being a reliable source. The reference for Science could be compelling, depending on the depth of coverage. Alas, without a subscription, I can't do that (without a library trip). —C.Fred (talk) 13:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The article on the Linnean Society is sorely lacking in references and certainly has nothing to back up the claim of being "the world's premier society for the study and dissemination of taxonomy and natural history". Unless sources can be provided to demonstrate the significance of this award, it doesn't merit an article. If such sources could be added, I would support keeping the article, otherwise, it should redirect to the society's article.--Michig (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ctrl-Alt-Delete. Not-able (not notable). :-) Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 21:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am convinced that there is meatpuppetry (at the very least) going on here. The history of edits to the page, and those turning up here to support DiligentTerrier/Collectonian is highly suspicious. AGF is not a suicide pact. DuncanHill (talk) 21:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Once again, you provide no evidence for your allegation whatsoever. I'd like to assume good faith here, unlike what you are obviously doing by calling my nomination "bad faith" and making a crazy meatpuppetry allegation. Please stop trying to get the discussion more dramatic. (Note to readers: see DuncanHill's earlier comments accusing the nomination of being "bad faith" and the same meatpuppetry allegation. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 22:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collectonian targeted several articles by the creator of the article currently in question. In doing so, he apparently ignored both the content of the articles and the sources given, making no apparent attempt to verify his own contention that the subjects were not notable. Diligent Terrier then popped up supporting Collectonian's activities, (and making an ignorant comment on a talk page which shewed a failure to read the article history correctly), and suddenly Diligent Terrier makes the AfD nom, and various editors who Diligent Terrier contacted (some of whom had themselves been editing in support of Collectonian) pop up here to support the AfD. DuncanHill (talk) 22:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And that is somehow meatpuppetry when we don't even know each other in real life, and the is practically the first time ever I've interacted with Collectonian. WHAT is the "ignorant" comment on the talk page? If you look again, it appears as though you removed a PROD tag calling it a speedy, and and you contend that the a PROD tag is a speedy. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 20:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of us know how to read page histories. I added a comment objecting to speedy deletion, and saying I would remove any further addition of the speedy tag. Subsequently, a prod was added to the page, which I removed. I then went to the talk page to explain this, when (after edit conflicts) I found that you had made a mistaken comment on my actions. DuncanHill (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment on an unrelated matter Can I point out that if this gets delted then pretty much everything in category:Biology awards needs to go too... (and that's just the B's ;) ) I am not a dog (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Each article is evaluated on its own merits, and it's the failings of this article on this subject that are the focus of this debate. —C.Fred (talk) 12:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As a frequent editor of Alfred Russel Wallace, I was glad to have an article written for this medal to wiki-link to. Biographies of Wallace, including (Slotten 2003) always mention how important this award was to him. Also the honoree's are pretty much a who's who of evolutionary biology. Given WP:NOTPAPER I think this topic is more than notable enough for an article. Rusty Cashman (talk) 23:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per the obvious notability of the article in question, the Linnean Society itself, common sense and the following guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability

Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines

Although articles should demonstrate the notability of their topics, and articles on topics that do not meet this criteria are generally deleted, 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 unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort.

If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or:

The fact that this article and/or the article page for the Linnean Society may need serious work done on it is irrelevant to the question of notability. Wikipedia is already receiving enough criticism from the scientific and academic world for there to be a deletion of an article on an important scientific issue. --Technopat (talk) 23:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep There are tons of sources establishing notability out there. That fact that the organisation isn't very well known outside its own field is irrelevant; there are plenty of reliable, third-party sources confirming notability. Linneus himself is the godfather of biological taxonomy, and Wallace is almost on a par with Charles Darwin. Given the rise in awareness of evolutionary biology in recent years it comes as no surprise that this organisation has chosen to give this award more frequently than in the past. I'll assume good faith in the nomination, but even a cursory Goggle would have shown enough sources to establish notability, bearing in mind that notability and fame are NOT the same thing. --Rodhullandemu 23:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Although nobody else has yet come forward with any decent independent sources, which would have been enormously helpful at all stages of this saga, I believe the following are more than adequate for establishing notability: [1], [2], [3], [4].--Michig (talk) 23:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Plenty of sources on Google scholar. Pburka (talk) 00:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep clearly a very prestigious, long standing and important award in its field. Definitely notable. RMHED (talk) 00:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep one of the most famous of all prizes in the sciences. I am not surprised all who know anything about this are rather startled by the nomination and its pile-on support--I can discern no possible rational (or understandably irrational) motive. DGG (talk) 02:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Sources have now been provided that demonstrate notability. This is indeed an important award. The Linnean Society of London is indeed "the world's premier society for the study and dissemination of taxonomy and natural history", but that article does need some good references. This is just the kind of topic that a reader of wikipedia might expect to find an article on. I really think that people should search for sources before proposing articles of this kind for deletion. Deleting it would not assist our mission. --Bduke (talk) 02:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per DGG. In full disclosure, I was involved here through an AIV request on User:I am not a dog which I declines, this seems a bit over the top, and certainly vindictive or ill-informed. Hiberniantears (talk) 04:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Given by a notable organization to notable recipients = notable award. --Itub (talk) 07:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The Google hits don't just show publicity by grateful recipients, which could well be a sign of vanity. They show serious Universities celebrating that their faculty members have won a major award. Would they do that if this wasn't important? Jonathan Cardy (talk) 08:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment to closing admin- please see also contribution from a new user on this AfD's Talk page. --Rodhullandemu 12:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC) Now moved here. --Rodhullandemu 15:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I find it curious that this page is nominated for deletion when Wikipedia contains a wealth of pages for awards. Here following are some science-related awards that Wikipedia has permitted. Please note that the following pages consist almost entirely of lists of awardees. Could someone explain how the Darwin-Wallace Medal award page is less substantial in content/scope than are these? Further, are the ornithologist awardees more notable than the Linnean Society awardees? The meteorologists? Who makes these judgements? Based on the quality of the recipients and on the formats for other pages on scientific awards, I see no credible reason for deleting the Darwin-Wallace Medal page; if that decision is made, then all of the following pages need to be deleted as well:

• • American Meteorological Society: Carl-Gustaf Rossby Research Medal

• • Cooper Ornithological Society: Loye and Alden Miller Research Award

• • International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence: IJCAI Award for Research Excellence

• • Lasker Foundation Albert Lasker Award for Clinical Medical Research

• • Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union: John Hobbs Medal Designquest10 (talk) 12:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • U.S. National Academy of Sciences: Alexander Agassiz Medal Designquest10 (talk) 12:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In case anyone is tempted to respond with OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it should be clarified that these will be defended every bit as strongly. I , for one, would regard nominations of those articles as prime examples of POINT. DGG (talk) 12:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not only does OTHERSTUFFEXIST in terms of numerous pages designated for specific awards, Wikipedia has gone further in its enthusiasm for award information and has devoted pages to listings of types of awards [please see examples following]. OK, just to iterate: there are abundant examples of award listings in Wikipedia, AND, further, there are compilations of award pages. So, this presence far exceeds the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS level of observation about Wikipedia. Clearly the practice in Wikipedia of listing awards / awardees and then listing multiple awards constitute a prevalent form of capturing this information. Perhaps the better emphasis should be to placed in ensuring that the importance/significance of the awards is clearly established in award-based pages, such as what C.Fred mentions following.

• • • List of prizes, medals, and awards for women in science
    • List of prizes, medals, and awards
    • List of prizes named after people
    • List of film awards
    • List of literary awards
    • List of architecture prizes Designquest10 (talk) 17:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I looked at the six for comparison. I left four alone, tagged a fifth because it was completely unreferenced, and prodded the last one because it was completely unreferenced and failed to make clear that it was a notable award. —C.Fred (talk) 13:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Important award by an important society. Why on earth was this nominated? It is not sufficient to nominate an article for deletion and give "not enough notability" and "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", both irrelevant to this article in any case, as your sole reasons. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep This nomination is ridiculous, this is a major, notable award. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 18:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep quite an incredible AfD nomination. Shyamal (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep "per all of the above" may sound lame, but there are many reasons to keep and they've all been clearly laid out already. This was an ill-advised AfD and I hope it was not fueled by the conflict between the article's author, I am not a dog and Collectonian. Mr. dog unfortunately removed CSD notices instead of using ((Hangon)) tags; eventually several more of his articles (such as Dame Janet Vaughan)^[5] were nominated for speedy deletion (but all survived). --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how the Prime Minister and Queen of England both thought enough of Janet Vaughan to knight her -- shows how little they know, I suppose. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep: In science and the history of science, this, and the Linnean Society are very notable. It may be little more than a list, but that is why it would be consulted. The reason each person was awarded the medal would created an article far too long for Wikipedia, but it is still important information and links can be made from the winners' own pages to the medal to explain the award in the context of individual winners. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 21:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - clearly notable award, merits own article. Gandalf61 (talk) 19:02, 22 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 (Non-admin closure), consensus is CRYSTAL clear. Paragon12321 (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

China 117 Tower[edit]

China 117 Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be complete WP:CRYSTAL. Googling for "China-117-Tower Tianjin" shows only 23 somebody's sketch-up that they uploaded to a few of the skyscaper sites. Zero news hits. KelleyCook (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - tallest building in china is easily notable, also construction has started so crystal does not apply --T-rex 23:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep as under construction. DGG (talk) 07:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sure if this is true, but then Wikipedia would demand that we need a reference to a reputable source saying this. An anonymous editor commenting on the various skyscraper websites certainly don't count. Most of the future construction sketchups on the mentioned sites are just pipedreams of some lonely wannabe architect. Should we put all those buildings on here? -- KelleyCook (talk) 13:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article fails general notability criteria, notability criteria for buildings and structures, and WP:CRYSTAL. If and when building is finished, if multiple reliable sources cover it extensively and in a non-trivial manner, then an article would be appropriate. At this time however, article fails. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 19:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, article is notable as this supertall skyscraper is going to be the tallest building in China at 570 m (1870 feet), which is taller than all but a few structures in the world. Two news sources document the groundbreaking (beginning of construction) of the tower back on 12-13-2007, although both are in Chinese and one is a close copy of the other. See [6], and [7]. The building is under construction so WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply. See this page. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Armin van Buuren - Oceanlab} 18:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Perhaps a Chinese-speaking Wikipedian could search for 中国117大厦 and if any reliable references come up they can include them in the article. Foreign-language references are better than no references. --Joowwww (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; the China 117 Tower is definitely notable. Becoming the tallest building in China (and one of the tallest in the world) is something that should be covered on Wikipedia. Even though there currently are not many sources, as construction progresses the building will become more well known. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 23:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note; I have made minor changes and improvements to the article. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 23:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article still fails general notability criteria, notability criteria for buildings and structures, and WP:CRYSTAL. Without "significant coverage" in "reliable sources", there is no choice but to delete. L0b0t (talk) 00:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I don't see a good reason so far for deletion. Thanks.

218.186.66.118 (talk) 11:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above vote was placed by User:L0b0t's wikistalker User:Yasis who is still hiding behind IP socks to avoid a block. Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Yasis. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 01:21, 22 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 - Nabla (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zeke_Vanderhoek[edit]

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

The wikipedia is not meant for advertising. The person mentioned in this article is not notable enough to merit an entry in the Wikipedia. He is no famous well known educator in America —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakesteed1965 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 18 July 2008

• Comment. Note the reference from the New York Times. Perhaps the school is more notable than the person. --Eastmain (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm not seeing any sign of encyclopedic notability here. His school would be notable - if and when it opens - but that's not scheduled to be until 2009, it seems to be a violation of WP:CRYSTAL to speculate on its notability now. Also I get more than a whiff of advertising about the article, created as it was by a single-purpose account whose only other contribution was a (deleted) article advertising Vanderhoek's Manhattan GMAT company. --Stormie (talk) 01:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. I am not very familiar with the US education scene, so I am for the moment not casting a vote. However, some aspects of this AfD are peculiar. User:TenPoundHammer removed a ((SPA)) tag from the nominator, with the cryptic edit summary of "srsly, he's a n00b, let's AGF". As I am one of those dinosaurs that still try to write English (and not being a native speaker at that), I had a hard time with that one! I know what AGF means and I guess that "srsly" is meant to indicate "seriously", but what kind of animal a "n00b" is I cannot fathom. In any case, a SPA tag is just a notification that the person in question has only edited articles related to one singe issue and the explication given with the tag explicitly says that this does not assume there is no good faith. Anyway, I looked up Jakesteed1965's edit history and I must say that I am impressed by someone who arrived in Wikipedia and within a day figured out that AfD exists and how to use it (cost me several months...;-). Turning to the issue at hand, I have Googled "Zeke Vanderhoek" and got hundreds of hits, one of them a biographical article in the NY Times (I have added that link to the article). Many other links appear to be to blogs, which does not necessarily confer notability, but there may be more out there if one looks for it. One final note to the nominator: it is not necessary for a person to be "famous", notability is enough. --Crusio (talk) 09:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are many charter schools (approximately one for every well-to-do suburb in America); this one has not even opened; on top of that, we are talking about one would-be founder of a charter school that has not even opened. Bear in mind that the New York Times is a local paper as well as a national one. These articles strike me more in the way of local interest rather than as serious news. RayAYang (talk) 05:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He doesn't seem to be notable, though I do think the Equity Project would be (provided proper sources exist, of course). All the information seems to come from his company site, and thus shouldn't be reliable as the basis for a neutral article on its own. JDbruin (talk) 17:35, 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. Sources provided by PC78 clearly show this fails WP:NFF at the present time (ie until shooting begins).Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certified Copy[edit]

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

Explicitly fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice to recreation when film can be reliably sourced to have already begun shooting. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nomination wikipedia is not crystal ball WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Film is not even in production. No guarantee that it will even be made/completed. AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Although several earlier sources state that the film was due to begin shooting in March this year (and one such source is linked in the article), IMDB says that this has been pushed back to next summer, and a recent article in Variety says May-June 2009. Having said that, there do appear to be an abundance of sources that indicate notability. PC78 (talk) 03:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — PC78 (talk) 03:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per PC78's source... filming is not going to begin anytime soon, and it is not guaranteed to actually commence. Article should only exist when filming begins, per WP:NFF. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:03, 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 Keep (non-admin closure), per wp:snow Oo7565 (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

Change of variables (PDE)[edit]

Change of variables (PDE) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. How-to guide, one of the things Wikipedia is not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has been criticized by Ryan Reich based on my motivations for creating the article, as much as for the quality of the article. I don't think motivations for creating an article are a valid basis for criticism; the article itself should be discussed on its own terms. (See the article Talk Page for the thread.) His criticisms of the article can be seen as a guide for improvement, not as a reason for deletion. This article documents a technique basic to symbolic computation with PDEs. It is no more or less relevant than the article on Integration by substitution. It's something that exists, is significant, and is worthy of note. If someone has a problem with the quality of the writing, then that person should feel free to improve the exposition and add what they think to be the relevant information for people who are interested in this topic. What is obvious to one person may not be obvious to another. I know, after doing a lot of Internet searches on this topic, that there is not a clear, simple, short and definitive exposition on this topic, but it is used in a casual way in many applied math expositions involving PDEs. That is actually a tricky issue is documented by a quotation from a Wikipedia-listed mathematician which is in the article. Ryan Reich could improve the article, following his criticisms, by:

• Providing a better exposition of the general principle
• Saying in a better way what the technique accomplishes
• Giving a better example which illustrates the technique

Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 22:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. See the discussion on the talk page for my response to the claim that I'm basing my criticisms on an assessment of Erxnmedia's motivations. I have also written there why I think this article is necessarily a how-to guide, and I believe that Erxnmedia's statement above affirms that he wrote the article as such a guide and would expand it to include more material in this vein (this is the short version of why his motivations are relevant, if not central to my criticism of the article). In particular, this article is much less relevant in its area than integration by substitution is in its, essentially because integration by substitution is an idea which goes above and beyond either its applications to symbolic integration or its connection to the chain rule, whereas substitution in differential equations is firmly a subset of both symbolic manipuation and the chain rule. It is not necessarily the role of Wikipedia to inform professionals in the use of a technique which is part of their work; occasionally, particularly in math, it functions that way because the tools of the trade are also part of the trade. Nonetheless, one could write an article on blacksmithing without being at all useful to blacksmiths, even in those issues which are tricky and badly-documented on the Internet. And not every mathematical tool is an object of independent study in math, particularly (as in this case) when it is an instance of something larger and more significant which has been specialized to a context in which nothing detailed can be said about it. I don't think this article can be rewritten to avoid being redundant with a discussion of the chain rule and also to avoid excessively instructing merely the technique of substitution. Ryan Reich (talk) 02:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Wikipedia is not a professional mathematical journal, and there is no reason to limit information about mathematics in Wikipedia solely to information which is of interest only to professional mathematicians specializing in that aspect of mathematics. Like it or not, change of variables in PDE is hard to do. The quote from J. Michael Steele in the current article was from a book on stochastic processes, not PDEs. There are many people who need to apply mathematics in professions other than mathematics, who need some correct information about a particular corner of mathematics which is accessibly presented, not like a JAMS submission in which all which would be apparent to an expert in the topic is ellided. Erxnmedia (talk) 13:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Looking on this as an how-to guide seems a drastic extension of the meaning. Seen in this light, most mathematical topics could be seen as how to prove something or other. Not the most sophisticated mathematical article in Wikipedia, but elementary levels are acceptable too. DGG (talk) 07:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DGG. --Itub (talk) 07:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - Appears to need large portions substantially rewritten to become truly encyclopedic, but I'm wary to delete anything so comprehensive. Per DGG it seems reasonable for a mathematics article that clearly needs some cleanup work. -FrankTobia (talk) 07:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for improvement, any first DiffEq textbook will attest to the significance of the subject. WillOakland (talk) 18:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I know pedagogical arguments do not really hold sway in these discussions, but there are some truly fascinating bits of functional theory behind the how-to [edit: current theory-sparse article]. In any case, the technique is treated by any Differential Equations book (perhaps a more standard mathematics text should be cited in addition to the Financial Applications?) sufficiently to be covered by the encyclopedic mandate - Eldereft (cont.) 08:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Eldereft, Can you add the functional theory to the article? I stated the general technique as best I could, but I am not an authority, and I am looking forward to someone with more experience and training supplying a deeper explanation of the theory behind the technique. Roughly speaking, I would guess that every change of variables can be cast as a coordinate system transformation, so the theory of coordinate system transformation would apply in this case. Also, the financial application (Black Scholes), which involves multiple change of variables, doesn't make clear the connection with coordinate system transformation. (It kind of looks more like a card trick -- it shows what can be done, but it doesn't necessarily make clear what's behind the curtain.) Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an important technique and not a How-to guide. QuantumShadow (talk) 11:55, 22 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 colorism. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pigmentocracy[edit]

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

This is just a neologism. The general concept is very important, but if it were being discussed under this name there would be a lot more material. As it is there is just one link to one article which uses the expression in its title. No evidence that anyone else uses the word. Redddogg (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The New York Times used the term as far back as 1993[8]. Google scholar finds 337 uses of the term[9]. Pburka (talk) 01:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete, or better yet merge with Colorism. For a 15-year old word championed by the NY Times, that small a number of ghits is a reasonable indication that it never really caught on as a term. Grutness...wha? 02:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to colorism, and merge the detritus that doesn't exist in that article. - Richard Cavell (talk) 02:49, 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 Delete. Soxπed93^(blag) 04:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bet the House[edit]

Bet the House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any reliable sources for Bet the House. It's also non-notable because it is a series that airs in short segments that are only a few minutes long. Schuym1 (talk) 05:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no sources or reason for notability given. Blackngold29 06:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Sources...Show's webpage, and minimal Google hits for "Bet the House" Nick at Nite...It appears to be a current show, but there's a distinct lack of external coverage...weak delete. — Scientizzle 15:49, 18 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, Protonk (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Just an interstitial show, no coverage in reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 22:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per User:Blackngold29 --T-rex 23:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The result is Delete. Schuym1 (talk) 18:45, 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. BJ^Talk 03:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of various type of power plants[edit]

Comparison of various type of power plants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is in need of copy editing, lacks references, and may not be NPOV. Further, much of this content is or could be covered on the Power station page. At this time I feel this article has no real value. Revr J (talk) 18:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Power station. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge to power station. This article adds little reliably sourced content and lots of opinion. For instance, it compares the startup times for nuclear and fossil power plants and gives the nod to nukes for ease of start-up, which is doubtful and unsourced. Edison (talk) 19:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, or Merge to power station with considerable checking of facts and NPOVing, per Edison. Rwendland (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reflecting, I agree a "merge" attempt is futile. There is just too much that is inaccurate, starting from scratch would be more reliable. BTW This article has no wikilinks to it. Rwendland (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - difficult to write an NPOV article with such a title. Deb (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Power station. Very important info, would be a shame to loose it. QuantumShadow (talk) 12:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I feel that a "merge" attempt is futile; there is are no references here and a lot of dubious (i.e. NPOV issues) and overall vague and poor quality points. Any content that isn't already covered elsewhere would need to be re-created from scratch. All this page offers is a concept: comparing the types more directly. If that's where we want to go, we should still delete and start fresh elsewhere. You can't really merge just a title. Revr J (talk) 19:45, 22 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 G11 by WBOSITG. Non-admin closure. Now I'm hungry. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 22:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bosco Stick[edit]

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

Non-notable food product, someone associated with the company making them has asked that it be deleted [10]. Hut 8.5 18:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the company request. Also because they're not notable (Bosco Pizza Company doesn't have a page and doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP). They are tasty though. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 19:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per nom and G11. —Animum (talk) 19:41, 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. Shereth 21:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan D'Onofrio[edit]

Jonathan D'Onofrio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable biography, fails notability even if he was, in fact, notable for WP:ONEVENT. The subject is a Staten Island teenager who got into some trouble with the law for throwing some rocks at store windows and breaking into a few stores. The author of the article attempts to add to dramatic value of the events by calling his petty crimes notorious and adding that the subject appeared on the front page of Staten Island Advance, a newspaper whose circulation of under 60,000 is limited to the New York City's borough of Staten Island. A Google search provides no other promising leads that would make the subject pass the basic criteria of WP:Notability. Also the article reeks of an attempt to disparage the subject. The author of the article (Sislander11 (talk · contribs)) has made no edits before or after this article. The image of the subject (Image:2zthwf5.jpg) was uploaded by the same editor describing the image as a mugshot yet still claiming himself to be the author of the image, a claim I find contradictory. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Classic case of WP:ONEEVENT. RayAYang (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Someone who spray painted grafitti, broke a few windows, was charged with burglary and got probation falls far short of satisfying WP:BIO even if the local paper had a few articles about the crime spree. Edison (talk) 19:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Just a local kid. Nothing more. DarkAudit (talk) 22:22, 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. PhilKnight (talk) 19:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Agents (TV series)[edit]

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

Article lacks sufficient Attribution for Verifiability of the WP:FICTION notability criteria. I can't find any thing about this series. triwbe (talk) 18:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

The Agents: New Heir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) --triwbe (talk) 18:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —triwbe (talk) 18:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No sources given, and a google search returns nothing. 78.146.213.30 (talk) 18:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as apparent hoax. DCEdwards¹⁹⁶⁶ 19:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• G3 Clear hoax. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 19:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. (EC)Hoax. Apparently James Coburn pulled off the finest performance of his long career in voicing one of the roles for the 2005 movie three years after he died. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:24, 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, BLP concerns have not been addressed per this discussion. Shereth 21:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zuby[edit]

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

More known for the minor mistaken identity incident than his music; fails WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, having read the sources, he seems notable enough, even if not for his music. Per WP:VERIFIABLE, the sources would suggest a keep, although I would like to see it perhaps betterly written. 78.146.213.30 (talk) 18:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete So far he is known only for the one incident. When his music career takes off then he should have an article. Redddogg (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - looks like WP:BLP1E applies --T-rex 00:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I can understand why people who don't know about this kind of music might think he's only known for the case of mistaken identity, but he's actually quite well known now for his music, both in the UK and across Europe and the middle east. I don't have any connection with him, but I'd heard of his music before the incident. He is frequently on the radio, such as Radio 1 Xtra, Radio 1 and many Local Radio stations. I think there's a real danger of bias in deleting this article, because unsurprisingly the sort of demographic that edits wikipedia are less likely to be aware of British Rap music. I will put some more references on the article if I have time.--Hontogaichiban (talk) 03:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - if he is actually well-known for his music, show me the reliable, secondary sources because I can't find any. WP:BIO1E: If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted.-Samuel Tan 07:21, 22 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. PhilKnight (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Breakout Tour[edit]

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

Pure crystal. No sources, no dates. Kww (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hmm... a google search found a few fansites that seemed to back it up, but nothing notable. 78.146.213.30 (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:CRYSTAL. Especially with tours, what's planned doesn't always materialize. Wait till it happens. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. No sources, no verifiable info. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 22:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - very crystal --T-rex 00:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. If anything that is worth mentionning and source it can go to Cyrus's article or Hannah Montana. --JForget 01:00, 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. Shereth 21:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crap From The Past[edit]

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

article fails to assert why this radio show is notable. Lacks 3rd party verifiable references Rtphokie (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unreferenced tag has sat on article for eight months; it stands to reason that nothing new is abruptly going to appear. —C.Fred (talk) 20:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 13:33, 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 G7 by Ruhrfisch . Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 22:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Widad Marachi[edit]

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

No assertation of notability. Article does have some content and a tag indicating that it's under construction. However, I see no point in finishing it if there is no proof that she even exists (5 google hits, all but one from Wikipedia). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 17:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

good point. you can delete it. i was trying to write it out, but i really can't find any more stuff, and they havent got anything except that she has two portraits worth a lot, but that's really it. i dont know how to delete it actually, so go ahead Baronsamedi88 (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• in that case G7 Speedy now tagged as such. Beeblbrox (talk) 17:48, 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 per unreliable, if any, sourcing as discussed. —Sean Whitton / 10:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kylie Minogue's leaked material[edit]

Kylie Minogue's leaked material (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Indiscriminate information. Fancruft. Fails WP:N as none of these songs have been released. Any useful reliable information can be merged to album that this stuff was meant to be released on. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No sources to back up the info. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 16:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge anything useful and sourced to the respective album pages per TDF "The Nom", bowl the rest.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 03:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Multiple unsourced claims suggest this article relies on a lot of original research. Dolphin51 (talk) 02:29, 25 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. PhilKnight (talk) 13:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kylie Minogue non-album songs[edit]

List of Kylie Minogue non-album songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable B-sides. All information is forked from respective singles. Fancruft. Please see the AfDs for Garbage B-sides| and List of Coldplay's b-sides. Any useful information about songs which have not been released on Kylie Minogue singles or albums can be merged into Kylie Minogue discography. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per consensus that B-sides and non-album songs generally aren't notable or verifiable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 16:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of demonstrated notability. Drewcifer (talk) 19:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails notability, especially if it is already on the respective singles articles.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 03:56, 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 Delete as being non-notable (not even an assertion). —Sean Whitton / 10:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shay Tubaly[edit]

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

No evidence of WP:BIO notability given. Zero Google news hits. Prod was disputed. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete - biography of a living, non-notable person -Samuel Tan 07:29, 22 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 is that the article is notable. Davewild (talk) 20:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

West Parish Elementary School Science Park[edit]

West Parish Elementary School Science Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a procedural nomination following discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 July 12. The original AfD was for West Parish Elementary School which is now a redirect to this article - interested editors may wish to consult both that debate as well as the resultant DRV discussion prior to submitting a recommendation here. In essence, it was argued that the school's notability hinged on the park's notability, therefore this AfD will also focus on whether the park is indeed notable. As a note to the closing administrator, if this discussion results in a deletion of the article, the redirect should also be re-deleted. Shereth 16:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I said earlier, no significant notability for either. DGG (talk) 17:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I was amused by this article, but no real notability attaches to a playground in an elementary school, even if it does receive a profile or two in the local newspaper. RayAYang (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I have added three more refs. Notability comes from multiple reliable sources which this page now has. I would add that getting MIT professors involved in the park's design certainly seems notable. TerriersFan (talk) 19:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, at the risk of repeating myself. Neither the park nor the school meet notability standards. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)\[reply]
• Keep meets WP:N as there are multiple independent references that are non-trivial and largely about the subject. I know of no guideline or policy that would indicate that this article shouldn't stay. Hobit (talk) 20:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I was thinking that the one thing that could change my mind is recognition in the profession that it was significant, and then at Hobit's request I looked again at the source from the national site of the Parent-teachers Association, which I think does meet that requirement. The single local reporter in Boston writing 3 articles about a local event are of course not independent of each other. DGG (talk) 23:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As some say above there is more than one source and the sources are relible. I see this to be an exclent recorce for other schools to devolp there own park.CelesJalee (talk) 01:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - park is clearly notable -Samuel Tan 07:31, 22 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. —Sean Whitton / 10:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don Ecker[edit]

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

Fails notability. Page also appears to be created/maintained by Don Ecker (Paramoral). Strong Conflict of Interest.

Strong Delete per nom. Wiki is not a MySpace directory for everyone who wants to create a page. 63.3.5.4 (talk) 04:44, 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. —Sean Whitton / 11:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Matters Radio[edit]

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

Don Ecker is using this page for self-promotion. Fails notability. Strong Conflict of Interest

• Delete - Zero google news hits. Other Google hits appear either to be blogs or "news" sites of questionable source. I'm having trouble finding quality verifiable 3rd party references.--Rtphokie (talk) 12:22, 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 Delete. —Sean Whitton / 11:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Past Sins[edit]

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

Don Ecker is using this page to advertise his only book. Fails notability. Strong Conflict of Interest —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepspire (talk • contribs)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 22:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - could not find sources that establish notability. This is one case where it is extremely difficult to find sources because the article's title is such a common phrase. I'm for deleting this because the article has been AFDed for a few days and no one (including the author) has come up with proof of notability.-Samuel Tan 07:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Agree, no reliable sources could be found to establish notability--Captain-tucker (talk) 02:05, 25 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(non-admin closure) The nominators concern that there are no sources has been addressed. No other arguments to delete. - Icewedge (talk) 05:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FaktorTel[edit]

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

Not notable. No sources or links to prove notability. Ernestvoice (talk) 16:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I added some references. --Eastmain (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Eastmain's references seem to establish that the company is a notable service provider RayAYang (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The publications Australian IT and The Age are notable enough for me.--Lester 04:00, 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 keep per WP:SNOW. -- RyRy (talk) 10:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Engin[edit]

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

Non notable company. No references to any 3rd party sources (only internal ones). Changes required have not been fixed since 2006 Ernestvoice (talk) 16:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Company is notable, however the article needs a clean-up and sources to be added. Bidgee (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable VoIP company, see [11] for News on Engin. Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 17:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 17:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 17:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I added some references. --Eastmain (talk) 18:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the references seem to suggest it is somewhat notable. 78.146.213.30 (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- notable, needs a cleanup and expansion not deletion. - Longhair\^talk 23:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, ASX-listed public company, which guarantees verifiable coverage in reliable sources. --Stormie (talk) 01:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, ample coverage in the Australian media (per User:Kodster) and listed on the ASX. Clearly meets notability guidelines, suggest considering a snow keep at this point. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. Notability evident since referencing subsequent to nomination. WWGB (talk) 06:43, 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 given lack of sources that fail to appear. Can be added to discography at a later date if these are provided. —Sean Whitton / 11:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World sales and certifications for Madonna[edit]

World sales and certifications for Madonna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Indiscriminate information. Fails WP:V and WP:RS as there are no inline cites or references. This article is just a listing of forked out information from respective albums. Anything useful can be merged into respective albums or Madonna albums discography. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Any of this information should be merged into the discography page and/or the respective albums page if it's not there already. (Personally, I'm a bit disgusted that Madonna has sold so many albums, but what can I say? She is a Material Girl after all...) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 16:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral for now. This is hardly indiscriminate information, and merging into Madonna's discography would probably make that article too big. It seems a reasonable sub-article, but badly needs to be sourced. If something needs merging, AFD isn't the place to bring it. If anyone can come up with reliable sources, I would say Keep and then start a merge discussion if need be.--Michig (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unnecessary subpage - content should be in discography page and sourced. PhilKnight (talk) 13:30, 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 --JForget 01:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Susan Vaughn[edit]

Mary Susan Vaughn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Autobiography. Is she notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable based on the material presented. No paintings in major museums. No major awards. If there's more material, let's see it. DGG (talk) 17:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The awards listed seem minor at best and unless there's recognition for her work that's not mentioned in the article, the subject seems to be a non-notable artist. Rnb (talk) 17:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a side note, it appears as if the article is quickly becoming a non-npov advertisement for her, her work, her website(s) and anything else related to her. Rnb (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Appears to fail WP:CREATIVE, the notability criteria for artists. -Verdatum (talk) 17:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 01:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per DGG et al. Johnbod (talk) 03:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Was already speedily deleted three days ago, but this has been ignored by the creator. LuciferMorgan (talk) 21:43, 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. —Sean Whitton / 11:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Le Transperceneige[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFF. According to this article (dated May 2008) the first draft of the screenplay is yet to be completed. PC78 (talk) 10:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 10:34, 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, — Scientizzle 16:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Seems to have no notability as well as being crystal ball. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Too early and thus violates wp:nff. Sonuvafitch (talk) 16:30, 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. BJ^Talk 03:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Performance Based SEO[edit]

Performance Based SEO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article appears to be a non-notable neologism. Facts have been gleaned from notable SEO blogs and then synthesized to form new conclusions. If all the cruft were whittled away, the remainder could be merged into search engine optimization, or there were sufficient content, a daughter article, search engine optimization payment models. "Performance Based SEO" is not a term of art used in the industry. Jehochman ^Talk 10:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with Jehochman -- an unnecessary fork of our carefully crafted feature article, Search engine optimization. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:22, 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, — Scientizzle 16:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable neologism, unnecessary fork. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:48, 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 per WP:HEY. Although the article still has WP:PROBLEMS, the references added put its notability beyond doubt. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 05:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deltathree[edit]

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

Non notable. Article is for the purposes of promotion the company only. No references to articles Ernestvoice (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable advertizing. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I added some references. --Eastmain (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Only incidental mention of this company in Eastmain's references, as part of the broader VoIP sector, insufficient to establish notability. RayAYang (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following edits, change to Keep. But the article still has rather serious POV and context issues. It's hard to say how it fares versus its competitors, except that getting de-listed from NASDAQ is probably not a good sign. RayAYang (talk) 01:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Tidied up and added even more references - should unequivocally pass WP:CORP now. Gr1st (talk) 23:10, 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 no consensus - default to keep (non-admin closure), no consensus reached even after relisting. - Toon⁰⁵ 21:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eximbills Technologies[edit]

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

Violation of WP:NOTDIR Beagel (talk) 12:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect to China Systems. Dpmuk (talk) 12:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:48, 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, — Scientizzle 16:02, 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 as non-notable. —Sean Whitton / 11:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MySNC Records[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be notable, and a previous speedy deletion noted this. The main contributor is JamieGilder, possibly the same person as the founder (Jamie Gilder). Ian¹³/t 12:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• References and other citations will be put on in due course. I understand the face that it is me inserting all this information.

But soon, songs will be released in the UK which will appear within the UK Singles Charts. MySNC Records is hardly anywhere to be found on the internet, and when searched, it's Unprofessional MySpace page appears. JamieGilder (talk) 14:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Exactly. Wikipedia isn't a place for advertising or a companies website, it is an encyclopedia. Neither is it a crystal ball - if the records company gets lots of signings, and hits on the singles chart, I doubt it's notability would be contested. But as it stands, there is little to make it notable. If there is little on the internet, it's probably because it isn't that important presently. Additionally, Original Research is banned. Ian¹³/t 15:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  What Original Research is currently on the page? - I really don't understand why this is being contested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamieGilder (talk • contribs) 17:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, one can assume any facts added by yourself without references are likely to be from your own knowledge. Ian¹³/t 18:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:CORP. Blatant WP:ADVERT & WP:COI  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 21:49, 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, — Scientizzle 16:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Although WP:COI isn't a reason for deletion non-notability and non-verifiability (of notability) are. Perhaps reasonable to work on in userspace (but, not include the links per say) so that if it becomes notable in a reasonably short length of time the article can be recreated. Otherwise, build it in Word (or other offwiki text program) and save it until the company does become notable. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:13, 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. —Sean Whitton / 11:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mass transit interactive[edit]

Mass transit interactive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A dead dotcom unlikely to ever have been notable. References and Google News searches link to many press releases and not much else. Its new corporate owners, Horizon Media, also have no article. I found this when closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Heller, the AfD about its founder.  Sandstein  08:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-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, — Scientizzle 15:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nothing notable here Mayalld (talk) 15:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:18, 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. —Sean Whitton / 11:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Björk remixography[edit]

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

Non-notable remixes. All information is forked from respective singles. Fancruft. Remixes are interpretations of other musicians work. If a remix has been released, then a remix should be discussed on the release article. This feels like indiscriminate information. Also fails WP:NEO for the use of remixography. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Merge into discography if you have to. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 13:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or complete merge as this is not an unreasonable level of detail for as highly notable an artist as Björk, in whose work the medium of the remix is prominent.Skomorokh 13:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge. Preferably the former, as a merge would make the dicography much less readable. Otherwise it needs citing, as some of these are not remixes (ie Brodsky quartet version of Hyperballad is a complete re-recording with different vocals and instruments - no remixer made this).Yobmod (talk) 09:41, 25 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 withdrawn. Article isn't even an hour old.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

F&D[edit]

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

Contains assertion of notability, but no actual evidence of such. Weak delete SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:25, 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 keep. John254 00:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Glasberg[edit]

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

Is this radio personality really notable? Rtphokie (talk) 15:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The reliable and verifiable sources provided, including coverage in The New York Times satisfies the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Additional sources are available to further expand the article. Alansohn (talk) 15:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep more reliable and verifiable sources should be found and included in the article though. And if she is more commonly called Lisa G than that should be the article's title as I understand the naming conventions. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Lisa G is certainly a notable radio personality. The Billboard award and the fact that she is regularly featured on The Howard Stern Show makes notability a no-brainer, for me. I do agree more sources are needed and proof of her other notable radio work, mentioned in the article, but not sourced, could easily be found.. Radioinfoguy (talk) 01:33, 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 Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 09:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Meat Packers[edit]

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

Non-notable band - fails WP:MUSIC Dancarney (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Dancarney (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete utterly nn, and very WP:GARAGE Mayalld (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete after looking through things a little more closely i'll recommend this for deletion, though i would say the WP:GARAGE comment was overstating it a little, first off its not my band, second, they do make money at it (they're just not RICH... not by a long shot - hence the delayed nn realization), and third - only having two members in a band and playing shows with others who aren't "members" isn't the same thing as being the guy who runs around music stores talking to every drummer they can see trying to recruit. Anyways, I'd rather see this thing out of here and deleted than look like a jerk defending my stupid mistake. Sorry folks, it won't happen again. Sonuvafitch (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 03:51, 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 keep. John254 00:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Un monsieur de compagnie[edit]

Un monsieur de compagnie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete nn film, per WP:FILM Mayalld (talk) 15:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —triwbe (talk) 18:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Main actors are hugely notable and many refs on the Internet. --triwbe (talk) 18:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as the nomination is unsubstantiated. In what way is the film non-notable? How does it fail WP:FILM? PC78 (talk) 00:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 22:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above comments. Esn (talk) 20:16, 22 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 Snowball Delete --JForget 01:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kane hemmings[edit]

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

Just declined a speedy on this one as some notability is asserted however I do not believe it is enough to pass WP:ATHLETE nor the informal guidelines at WP:FOOTY as he has not yet made a first team appearance for a club in a fully professional league. nancy ^(talk) 15:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have to admit the article is hard for me to read in its current format but, I didn't see an assertion of notability. Either way he fails not only WP:ATHLETE but, also WP:BIO so should be Deleted. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - then again, I have a sort of vested interest as it was my speedy that was declined :-) CultureDrone (talk) 16:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as failing WP:ATHLETE and even the more inclusive WP:FOOTY. And before people start saying it, no, the unsourced claim that this 16 year old kid has signed a contract with Rangers does not mean that he meets WP:ATHLETE, he has to actually play for them, something which he probably won't do for at least a year if at all....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk)
• Delete, fails notability. --Jimbo^[online] 20:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. BanRay 21:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 16:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. A long, long way from meeting the criteria for an article per WP:N and WP:Athlete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:07, 22 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.

Result was Speedily Deleted - Copyright infringement. (G12) --Michael Greiner 16:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latest trends in power systems[edit]

Latest trends in power systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This gave me a headache, but it appears to be WP:OR, possible a term paper or journal article. ukexpat (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If it is not original research then it will be copyvio. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 14:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as copyvio of this - tagged as such. Mayalld (talk) 14:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- good catch. – ukexpat (talk) 15:05, 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 Rename to List of Old Tonbridgians. The Helpful One 11:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Old Tonbridgians[edit]

Notable Old Tonbridgians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Merge into Tonbridge School article as an Alumni section. s p u n k o 2 0 1 0 (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The list is not excessively long as to require its own article. Merge into Tonbridge School. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 19:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, merge is definitely necessary, perhaps coupled with getting rid of some of the less notable people on the list. Eton might be able to sustain its own grad list, but not Tonbridge.Thedarkfourth (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename to List of Old Tonbridgians to conform to the list naming guidelines at WP:SAL. Size is not the only reason to have these as separate articles. Consistency with the treatment of other alumni lists IS a reason, including the ability to categorize (which would disappear if there were a merge); I have added the relevant cats. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - and rename per the reasoning of UnitedStatesian. The list may not be huge, but it is beyond small. -- Whpq (talk) 18:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Sean Whitton / 11:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Character Zero[edit]

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

Useful - reference to Man Mulcahey clarified —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.30.142 (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC) Non-notable. Not released as single. No inline citations means limited reliability. Media coverage? Tenacious D Fan (talk) 13:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 13:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It doesn't establish notability per WP:MUSIC:Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts Hasn't been charted. ...that have won significant awards or honors...:It has won no awards. Also, in the general notability policy: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject Both the sources are the band's website, not independent of the subject. TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 14:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Songs.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 14:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect into Billy Breathes (the album it's on). Not notable, and not among the very small amount of Phish singles to chart. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:28, 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 no consensus. Canvassing concerns aside, there are a sufficient number of well established editors casting doubt on the argument to delete to give me pause. What this really boils down to is a question of whether or not the weak sourcing provided is enough to nudge it into the realm of being notable - and that question really hasn't been answered. My suggestion to those wishing to see this kept are to find additional sources (not just the SSS information) to stave off future deletion attempts. Shereth 23:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

bRitic[edit]

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

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

Does not appear to be notable, no significant or major coverage Stifle (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the Simplified Spelling Society advocates it, alone makes it notable. MinYinChao (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide citation to support that statement. --Snowded (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[12] MinYinChao (talk) 13:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

citation reports on Britic does not advocate it. Nothing better than that? It may be enough to justify the existence of something (maybe under the Deans name, possibly Britic). The other citation given as I pointed out on the talk page is to an email and not a valid source. I think you need more to justify it. --Snowded (talk) 13:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Please read the source. The fact that the Simple Spelling Society mention it in their journal proves it. From checking your contributions, it seems you have no knowledge of anything linguistic, so I suggest you leave this to the linguists. MinYinChao (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)1stly proving the existence of something doesn't prove it is notable and I'd suggest reviewing the policies and guidelines around notability and verifiability. 2ndly your comment about Snowded's knowledge (or lack thereof) of linguistics is uncalled for and does not contribute constructively to the discussion of the article in question. Let's stick to the issue of discussing the article itself and it's merits/flaws which mean it should be kept or deleted please. With that in mind I have to say Weak Delete as other than the spelling society it doesn't have any appearances in multiple reliable 3rd party sources. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(indent). I read the Source, it reports on the death of Deans and provides details on Britic. It does not at any point say "supports", "advocates" etc. There are no post 1983 references when the SSS site is searched on Britic as a key word. Any editor is entitled to question citations, sources etc . --Snowded (talk) 14:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so if any editor is entitled to question citations and sources, why was it that you expressed your desire for me not to raise the issues of the biases you were exhibiting on the talk:Wales discussion?

And anyway, no, the fact it is from the "Journal of the Simplified Spelling Society" shows its notability. Anything mentioned by the organization becomes instantly notable, please see WP:VERIFIABLE. MinYinChao (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One SSS source might be disputable, but there are a whole multitude of incidents where the society refers to it.

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

etc

while even the ESP system refers to it [[18]

and Rand has even spoken about it alongside other systems [19]

MinYinChao (talk) 14:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I (and others) asked you to stop accusing other people of being biased because they did not agree with you and you were also asked to stop edit warring. In respect of this article there are no third party citations that I can see other than the 1983 one you mention above along with some 17 other references (mostly minor) on the SSS site. Your ESP reference is one minor mention. At the moment, given the poor quality and the sparse nature of the references I would say delete, but if you can provide material I would be happy to support its continuation. --Snowded (talk) 14:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No third party citations? Are you not reading the above discussion? Firstly, any mention by the SSS makes it notable. Do you understand what the SSS is? It is the most powerful English Spelling Reform society in the world. Not only are they mentioned once by the society, but they feature in many, many documents written by them. On top of that, there are even more third part resources from outside the SSS as well. Additionally, you were exhibiting bias, Snowded, since you keep pushing the use of "country" over "constituent country", "subdivision", etc, all of which are as equally sourced as what you were trying to push. MinYinChao (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

request please get away from the talk:wales thing. It has nothing to do with this article. Let's stick to the issue at hand which is specifically why bRitic should or should not be deleted. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cite them then. So far the SSS links are weak and not enough to support the continuation of this article. Oh and please stop showering people with the "bias" word. --Snowded (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was pretty sure that where I just spent the time writing out the list of some of the sources, that counted as citing them. But then again, from experience of you on my talk page, I realize it may take 2 or 3 attempts to get you to listen. And don't push it onto anyone else Snowded, the only person I have stated is bias, is you. MinYinChao (talk) 14:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

commentRegardless of bias or not by the user you are accusing you need to address the issue of THIS article and THIS article only. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I was curious as to whether it was even real (or a hoax) when debating (read edit warring!) over the capitalisation of the name. Now that someone else seems to think the same, it suggests maybe it isn't notable. Furthermore, the sample text section seems rather original research to me. Perhaps adding a few paragraphs to English spelling reform would be more appropriate. Nouse4aname (talk) 14:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that you have been blocked for edit warring, and yet you continued to do it despite warnings. Yet you somehow think you are stil correct regarding the name capitalization, even though it was settled in opposition of your contributions? Oh, and note, that on the links you gave, they actually backed up our argument. MinYinChao (talk) 15:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

commentRegardless of "editwarring" or not by the user you are accusing and the name capitalisation dispute you need to address the issue of THIS article and THIS article only. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. As a member of the Spelling Society myself, I cannot even believe we are considering the possibility of deleting the article. It is well cited, it is hardly unknown across the linguistic world, and it is well-written. --Illujion (talk) 14:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting that this above user has only two contributions, one being the above...amazing that they managed to stumble across this debate so soon after it began....Nouse4aname (talk) 14:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am supposing this is a suggestion that this user may be myself? Well firstly, I'm not called "Sam", and not a male anyway, but regardless, you can check whether we are the same user by the "Checkuser", can you not? Although I personally do find it odd about the user myself, but anyway... MinYinChao (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wasn't suggesting it was you, but when users with few contributions start contributing to AfDs, it does raise questions as to their motives....Nouse4aname (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry I didn't mean to cause any confusion. It was just that someone came onto an SS forum and mentioned what was happening here - several people are discussion it, and I thought that since i had an account, I may as well give my thoughts. Illujion (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)Hi. Welcome to wikipedia. You may wish to mention at said forum that we are not debating the society or its existence as a reasonably reliable source but, you should also mention to anyone else looking to cmoe here and provide input that they should review the notablity and verifiability policies before commenting. Multiple reliable 3rd party sourcing of a non-trivial nature means the article should have just that. I'm sure the policies and guidelines spell it out a bit better. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have given a whole list of third party sources above. MinYinChao (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok. Just out of interest, was that on ESES? MinYinChao (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I point out that you seem to be forgetting that one SSS reference alone would make it notable, let alone the dozens that there are, along with all the other 3rd party cites. I agree with Lllujion. I can't even begin to understand that some editors would dispute its notability gathering the sources provided. MinYinChao (talk) 15:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nouse4aname, if he is a suspected single puprpose account, then tag his vote as such. Otherwise, the attempt to incite drama with these needlessly overlong and unncessary threads that could've been easily avoided is not appreciated. SashaNein (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment actually no, one reference from SSS doesn't make something notable. Just because something is referenced once, twice, or many times by one single source doesn't guarantee notability. You need reliable 3rd party references from multiple sources which cover the subject in a non-trivial manner. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I have given these. Did you check the ESP and Rand cites I gave? Apparently not. MinYinChao (talk) 15:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please give me a page number reference for the 300+ page Legend of the MicMacs where they mention bRitic so I can try to find your substantial coverage from this source? And where precisely in all that ESP stuff is bRitic covered in more than passing? Be specific please. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove the citations I give. MinYinChao (talk) 16:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what are you talking about? Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The diff in question is here, where you did appear to remove one of his links. SashaNein (talk) 16:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are 30 hits for "britic" in the MicMacs document. If you use the "find" bar, this should help you. And yes, thanks for answering for me Sasha. Btw, I'm a girl, lol. MinYinChao (talk) 16:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my apologies I must of clicked "cut" instead of "copy" when moving it into the second browser. I'd still like you to point me to the specific pages which cover bRitic. And to its occurance at the ESP thing. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep though I'd like to see some further real references as well as the assertions here. DGG (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, although I agree with David above. 78.146.213.30 (talk) 18:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attempting to summarise[edit]

Nothing like going to sleep for a few hours and coming back on line. Ignoring the inappropriate comments and assertions it seems to me that the following represents the facts of the case.

• We have an entry and citations that support the fact that something called Britic exists, created by someone called Dean and that it is a system for creating a phonetic version of English
• We have a few articles from the Spelling Society which describe the system (circa 1983) and before that are (where substantive) linked to the death of Deans. Others are single phrase or sentence references
• We have one reference in ESP (largely a newletter type source) and Rand
• The assertion that the Spelling Society have endorsed Britic is not supported by the references (unless one accepts the argument that an article about something comprises endorsement which would be unusual to say the least). However they do mention it pre 1983 so we have established that they are (i) aware of it and (ii) in the references do not specifically reject it
• The assertion that the system has been successfully tested in the UK and Australia is only supported by one email support which does not satisfy WIkipedia criteria for citation.
• The talk page states that the Spelling Society has a peer reviewed process for assessing schemes and that Britic has not yet been subject to that process. This statement is not supported by a reference, but has not been challenged on the talk page. Its truth or otherwise would be a material fact so can anyone shed enlightenment?

Now regardless of opinions are there any other sources that should be considered? Until we have agreed on what material is available judgement on keeping or deleting should be held back. No one wants to delete an article that has utility, but it has to have good citations and it has to satisfy the test for notability. So before we go there, can those who support this page, please confirm if the above is correct and if there are other sources supply them. --Snowded (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest the removal of the "success" section, considering the lack of worth of that particular source, but I think the rest of the citing is fine, and see no reason for the article to be deleted. Having just gone and had a look around the internet, I see it appears quite well known amongst the spelling reform community. (78.146.213.30) (talk) 21:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the removal of dubious claims (my citation request, your insertion of dubious) will be necessary if it stands. For the moment I think we need to know what the evidence is. Can you provide some citations from your look around the internet? "Britic + Spelling" produces 109 returns, the vast bulk of which are either to this page, or the existing (and limited citations). A further set uses "Britic" but not in the context of this article. --Snowded (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to make the amendments to remove unsupported claims etc. anyway as the article has a better chance of surviving that way. Responses to the questions above would be appreciated. --Snowded (talk) 04:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sad to see a couple of bits being removed, but I guess that until better sourcing of them is found, there is not much of an alternative. The Spelling Society pages are of the most worth here.

Strong Keep by the way, just in case that wasn't clear. MinYinChao (talk) 08:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you shed any light on the statement on the talk page in respect of peer review by the Spelling Society and the claim that Britic has not been through that? --Snowded (talk) 11:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. The comment left on the talk page (although not left by myself, just in case you didn't know), refers to the fact that the SSS does not have a specific system it fully adheres to. Instead, it publishes information about a multitude of differing ones, each of which it gives differing levels of support to - bRitic being one of the main ones. The society historically had an official spelling reform system, but in 1960, it stopped backing just one, and as mentioned, gave support to several. MinYinChao (talk) 11:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(indent) All I can find on their site is the articles otherwise referenced. I can see no list of schemes to which it provides support. Can you provide a reference which does that? --Snowded (talk) 12:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What? No one said there was a "list". It is simply that the systems which they mention are the ones they have backing of. There is no binding commitment of support to any of them if that is what you are asking? MinYinChao (talk) 12:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK so the only evidence is that they mention Britic in a small number of articles (c 1983) and some news items and emails? --Snowded (talk) 12:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(indent) Now we have removed the unsupported claims and the established editors on the page accept that I think I am prepared to say WEAK SUPPORT on the basis that Britic exists, someone might want to know about it. Its not especially notable, but is as notable as many a page. The editors obviously care enough to put effort into detail. However it needs watching to make sure it does not engage in unsupported claims --Snowded (talk) 12:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete Fails general notability guideline that requires significant coverage and prefers multiple sources. Mentions by a single source, even if that source is reliable, are rarely enough to establish a presumption of notability. L0b0t (talk) 19:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is another option which is to label it as a stub and allow the editors to gather more material --Snowded (talk) 19:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I point out, L0b0t, if you cared to read the discussion, you would see that there are multiple sources.

So far, we thus have the following:

Weak Delete - User:Jasynnash2

Delete - User:Nouse4aname

Strong Keep - User:Illujion

Weak Keep - User:DGG

Keep - User:78.146.213.30

Strong Keep - User:MinYinChao

Weak Keep - User:Snowded

Strong Delete - User:L0b0t

This means that 5/8 have voted Keep, and 3/8 have voted Delete. This shows that with such a strong support for the keep of the article, it certainly can't be deleted. The only options available to us now, are how to help boost the article. Snowded's suggestion of labelling it as a stub may have some worth, but I am not entirely sure about it, considering the length of the article is not particularly stub-like. MinYinChao (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You would assist your cause more if you found some third party references that were not the Spelling Society. To put it very simply, you do not have multiple sources in any meaningful sense of the word. Its not a vote (please read the heading) it will be decided on facts. I have set up a couple of searches to check the thing out, it would not take much for me to move to delete if those don't turn anything up. --Snowded (talk) 21:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would posit that 8 opinions on an AfD only 11 hours old would benefit from more eyes, time, and arguments based on policy and guideline. If I may quote from WP:RS:

"* "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive."

and "In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article. Secondary sources provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred. Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic."

and "Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources."

The sources provided consist of nothing more than an obituary of the creator, trivial mention in a newsletter, a newsletter editorial announcement of a reader's letter stating that the creator had appeared on radio and asking if anyone had heard it, an email exchange mentioning the death of the creator, a passing mention in a newsletter editorial, and a newsletter posted on some guy's homepage. Without sources more substantial than a single organization in the field and their interaction with 1 man (Richard Lung), I'm afraid article just doesn't make the cut. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 01:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see reason why must delete, I would go for keep. Thanks.

218.186.67.37 (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The posting above from User:Yasis, who is hiding behind 218.186.67.37 (amongst others) to evade his block should be discounted. He is merely stalking my edit history to revert or gainsay my edits. Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Yasis, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:218.186.65.34 reported by User:L0b0t (Result: 72 hours), and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive76#User:Yasis reported by User:NJGW (Result: Reported and reporting users blocked for 24 hours). Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep - because (1) the journal cited is likely to be peer reviewed and therefore is of high value, and (2) the fact that the number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources leads me to believe that the citations given are sufficient fo fulfill notability, even though they are (weakly) related. Ultimately, this is a very borderline case that depends on whether academic journals are such high-value sources that one or two of them can negate the need for other high-quality sources. -Samuel Tan 08:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I find 4 uses of britic in the Rand page- which isn't about the subject at all.(all are trivial mentions which confirm existence) and still can't find it mentioned in the ESP reference. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I find it rather odd that the only references for this are from over 20 years ago. Surely if this topic were really notable, in that space of time a large quantity of better quality information could be found? The lack of significant coverage for two decades surely indicates something about the impact of this topic? Nouse4aname (talk) 13:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reply apparently notability doesn't have a time limit. 20 year old references would be fine for me if they adhered to the multiple, third party, reliable, and non-trivial coverage parameters. The ones give so far don't and I'm not seeing much of an attempt to provide ones that do. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, that the age of a citation doesn't really matter, and has no real bearing on notability or verifiability. However, for something such as a spelling system, that was introduced in 1983 (apparently), you would expect an increase in the number of sources available each year after that. Given that no sources have been provided since 1983, one can only assume that the system has not been widely accepted or used, and thus in my mind at least, that raises questions as to whether Britic really is notable, or just an idea that some guy had 20 years ago that never really took off...Nouse4aname (talk) 13:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. eMail requests for information to the press office of the Spelling Society have so far received no replies. The main editor on this page whose profile indicates a qualification in linguistics has failed to respond to an invitation to provide any academic citation. If nothing else comes in then I think my weak keep is going to shift to a strong delete fast. One can only assume good faith for so long.--Snowded (talk) 13:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Weak notability and other concerns such as likely WP:NOR and WP:COI according to the edit history, tone of edits, and evasive/non-committal replies by the primary contributor so far. After much search and cross-checkings done by other editors earlier, I don't think the contributor or anyone else could provide any latest and more reliable third-party citations other than those mentioned above. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 04:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for same reasons as Aldwinteo --Snowded (talk) 08:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Just passes by references to the apparent Spelling Society. There doesn't seem any consensus to delete at all. Tlilita (talk) 20:42, 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.