< July 18 July 20 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep, given WP:SNOW, per withdrawing nominator. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 16:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Natural Bears Classification System[edit]

The Natural Bears Classification System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Reason: Notability. Obscure internet coding system (like Geek Code but not as popular?) for bears (the gay slang term, not the furry animal). User0529 (talk) 03:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep given the extensive expansion - Nabla (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fag stag[edit]

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

Obscure term even within the gay community, stub article better suited for a dictionary User0529 (talk) 02:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC) *Delete From the article, "The phrase 'fag stag', although rare, is beginning to be used more often as homosexuality becomes more readily accepted among straight men." I'm sorry, we don't keep articles about phrases that are rare. Mandsford (talk) 13:59, 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 This was a procedural nomination, so I feel WP:SNOW applies, especially given that I was the editor who bundled this into another AfD in the first place. The article still needs third-party sources, but amid all the "it's useful" !votes I've found a couple actual sources which have me convinced that this is notable. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer Farfel and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 02:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation[edit]

Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article was bundled in with my nomination of Rec.sport.soccer by another editor. In the interest of clarity, I have unbundled this article and put it up for it's own discussion. Otherwise, I abstain for now. DarkAudit (talk) 23:26, 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), as per the unanimous consensus in this discussion. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First Person Plural: My Life As A Multiple[edit]

First Person Plural: My Life As A Multiple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable book. This is a first hand account by the author about his affliction with dissociative identity disorder. Book was on NYT bestseller list in 1999, but otherwise is non-notable. Author did appear on a few TV shows when the book was published. Never reviewed by major newspapers or mainstream media. The author has not written any other books or articles on the subject. Author is not otherwise notable. Book does not appear to be cited by mainstream medical literature. —G716 <T·C> 22:41, 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, early closing per WP:SNOWBALL, borderline speedy-delete case

VAIBS[edit]

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

No evidence of notability provided, no reliable sources provided: external links do not seem to provide independent support for the article's assertions, one is to the bank itself, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the article's assertions, the other is to a Yahoo! blog. Googling only gives 15 hits, apparently none to traditionally-edited reliable sources. The Anome (talk) 22:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We sued the bank in Tokyo Disrict Court. Case Number is 467 in Tokyo Disrict Court. Law firm is Kamiyacho Central. Law firm's email is okushima@k-central.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaibsvaibs (talk • contribs) 22:57, 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 G4 (recreation of deleted article) by Tanthalas39 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Non-admin closing. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 01:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Step Up 3D Don't Stop[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Step Up 3D Don't Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:NFF, since filming hasn't started yet. shoy (reactions) 22:07, 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 as recreation of previously deleted article and nn bio posted by someone with a conflict of interest. Daniel Case (talk) 22:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bryce R Hall[edit]

Bryce R Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO. Webmaster of a non-notable website (doesn't have a WP article), in addition the account that created this page is named after the website. shoy (reactions) 21:49, 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) 21:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amit and naroop[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:CORP. Taking pictures of famous people isn't much of an assertion of notability. shoy (reactions) 21:44, 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 to delete at this time. —Sean Whitton / 13:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Reider[edit]

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

Prod removed with no reasoning, delete per MUSIC and NOTMEMORIAL. This wholy uncited article was created after the subject's death. A Google News search draws no coverage outside of Cincinnati, OH and Columbus, OH (her local area) prior to her obituary notice. As she was an independent musician, there are no major tours, no charted hits, no gold records, no assertion of stylistic representatation (in fact, a recent edit to the article compares her to more established artists), no major music awards or radio play, and in fact, nothing at all that fits WP:MUSIC besides the theme song criterion (which is uncited), despite a close to ten-year career claimed by the article. Perhaps the most pertinent question is that if she was so notable as to have an article, why did no one think to start the article before she died? This seems to be a perennal problem here on WP. MSJapan (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • We do not have articles for people who may have become notable, only for those that are. TigerShark (talk) 20:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomad, that is an overstatement of international coverage of her death. In the source above, Reider's death was reported by Pink News, a well-regarded European GLBT news source, which makes sense as Reider was a gay rights activist. However, the coverage from Pink News should not indicate that she is being covered by European media not centered on GLBT issues. -- Guroadrunner (talk) 14:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
* COMMENT The fact remains that a reputable European news source covered Katie Reider's death because of her music and her work as a gay rights activist. The editors of Pink News clearly felt Katie Reider's craft and accomplishments were of sufficent familiarity and interest to its readers to report on her death. As a former reporter with three large national newspaper chains in the United States, I can assure you that news organizations do not write obituaries for people for whom such attention would puzzle its readers.Nomad 2 (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having a song used on a TV show is not the same as having a song which was the theme tune to a TV show, which is what WP:MUSIC specifies. So unless she wrote the theme tune to Dawson's Creek (which I don't think is claimed) then she still fails WP:MUSIC. TigerShark (talk) 21:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. WP:MUSIC specifies "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable...." It cites the theme song as an example, not the defining criteria. Nomad 2 (talk) 02:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Incidental music in an episode of a TV show is not notable. MSJapan (talk) 16:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT: WP:MUSIC states "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." Katie's career and performances have been covered with extensive original reporting by numerous news organizations in large DMAs and overseas. WP:MUSIC states "performance in a television show." Katie Reider's music appeared in several nationally broadcast TV shows. WP:MUSIC further states "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network." Katie Reider's music is in rotation on Sirius Satellite Radio. Finally, Katie Reider's work seems to be covered by Point 7: "the local scene of a city." She received five local music awards.Nomad 2 (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. Katie Reider's music was used in nationally broadcast television shows and is in rotation on Sirius Satellite Radio. Also, Reider's record label is a label of note, and she is cited on Blue Jordan Records Wikipedia page. Further, she won five music awards during her career, and she toured extensively in the United States. Nomad 2 (talk) 02:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The awards were local, there seems to be no assertion of her having toured nationally, and Blue Jordan is not a label of note. The article on the label lists 19 releases in 11 years, all from local artists only - the various stubs that are bluelinked only build false notability, as most of them only list the same info in the label article. MSJapan (talk) 16:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Criteria "similar to" what the policy states don't matter; if the criteria as set forth exactly in the policy are not met, that's it, and obits are a poor indicator of notability. MSJapan (talk) 16:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-MrFizyx (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources listed are local, one is a local alt.weekly and another is a student paper. So that doesn't suggest that her notability as musician went beyond her local communities. --Mosmof (talk) 12:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bob Franke once said, "I never succeeded in becoming a national figure, but I succeeded in becoming local in an awful lot of places." Do you suggest that an "alt.weekly" of a major city and the "student paper" of the largest US university are not reliable sources with non-trivial coverage? What about the other three articles? How about this article from today's New York Times (it appears she played in places like the Bitter End in the hometown of that paper)? Her music was twice featured on Dawson's Creek; any chance they showed that in your town? -MrFizyx (talk) 15:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC) [p.s. The show was set in Massachusetts, but filmed in Wilmington, North Carolina and shown internationally.][reply]
I never said the coverage wasn't non-trivial (holy triple negative, Batman!). They just don't establish any sort of notability beyond her own community. And college papers and alt weeklies are very local in what they cover - it would be a different story if we were talking about, say, Miami Herald or the Daily Tar Heel. The NY Times piece is good, and helps establish WP:N much better than any of the above links (though I don't think she still qualifies under WP:MUSIC). As for performing at the Bitter End - the place is basically like an amateur showcase, and hosts upwards of five or six acts a night. While there is a selection process, I don't think playing there demonstrates any sort of notability, any more than an aspiring comedian performing at a West Village open mic night. And the Dawson's Creek credit doesn't help that much too - there are plenty of television music by session musicians and artists who never release an album. We're not going to have an article about the guy who wrote the music for a Battlestar Galactica episode, even though it's a fairly big show and it's set in outer space and filmed in a studio in Los Angeles. I would focus on finding sources like the NY Times one, rather than relying on local papers and Dawson's Creek. --Mosmof (talk) 16:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to figure why the The Daily Tar Heel was so much better than The Lantern and then it finally sunk in that your point was that this wouldn't be local. :P I know of no notability criteria that require sources to be geographically diverse. OK then, here's one from Chicago. Not as helpful where reliability and utility for writing an article as concerned, but yet another locale:
While I think you could find more articles of this sort, but I'm not sure they would contribute much to improving the article.-MrFizyx (talk) 20:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not hasty at all. Actually, at the time I made my note about much of the facts being from the Cincinnati Enquirer, I had completely missed that it was a copyvio. I had previously read the Enquirer article (before the Wikipedia article) and had not realized that the Wiki article was indeed a cut and paste. Had I realized it was, I would have called for a Speedy Delete myself, and requested a rewrite of the article. Now that it has been done, I favor a keep, as was my original contention. Eauhomme (talk) 04:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: So now that the article has been rewritten, where's the assertion of notability? There's no tour information, nothing on her awards, fanbase, or sales figures, and nothing substantiating the Dawson's Creek claim, etc. MSJapan (talk) 16:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. The New York Times ran an obituary on Katie Reider in the A-SECTION of the July 24, 2008, edition. Two Katie Reider songs were used in "Dawson's Creek," at least one in Season 4. The official Dawson's Creek music site is offline for some reason, but the NY Times article provides attribution for the use of her songs on the TV show. Nomad 2 (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not an obit, but rather a local interest story as a result of. However, the attribution is one line, doesn't even give the song title, and there's really very little in the way of specifics about Reider's career in there. It's more about "the personal impact on the friends" than anything else. The vagueness of the info indicates that it clearly came from the interviewees, as oposed to outside research, so there's a real problem with WP:RS. MSJapan (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An article in the A-SECTION of the New York Times is fundamentally more than a "local interest story," given the global readership and the standards by which stories are judged newsworthy to appear in print. I don't think you can separate Katie Reider's notability from the theme of the article -- people die everyday, but articles such as this one are not commonplace. The Dawson's Creek attribution is in the OSU newspaper article. OSU's The Lantern is a credible newspaper at a leading journalism school.38.112.25.6 (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC) (Nomad2)[reply]
Actually, the cited article ran in the B (metro) section. It is the Our Towns column, which deals with the New York City suburbs. The news peg is that she lived in Montclair, New Jersey - hence, there is local interest. Snakewriggle (talk) 07:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Venues played[edit]

I haven't found an actual tour schedule her Reider and it seems she was the opening act in many cases here, but here are some shows that I dug up.

Many of these can be verified through primary sources (e.g. the Katie Todd Band site or the venue site). This only shows a few gig's outside of OH, but might be a start for someone to work through. -MrFizyx (talk) 21:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Katie Reider has performed live since the 1990s and was in the midst of an East Coast tour in 2006; the complete roster is far lengthier than one submitted here. Katie Reider also performed several times at a leading regional invitation-only showcase event, the MidPoint Music Festival.38.112.25.6 (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC) (Nomad2)[reply]


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

The result was Delete due to lack of sources. —Sean Whitton / 13:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Essence Of Praise[edit]

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

This choir does not meet the notability guidelines and has multiple other issues. Tavix (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not sure about the award as an assertion of notability, but even if major, it, like the rest of the article is uncited and unverified. Therefore delete as no notability established.Yobmod (talk) 08:51, 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 - Nabla (talk) 20:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Stokes (entertainer)[edit]

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

Non-notable artist, possibly self-promotion of the user. Only source is a myspace page. Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 21:13, 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 keep - vandal request. Sceptre (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Beta Band[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC, appears non-notable. Theplansthattheyhavemade (talk) 20:31, 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. —Sean Whitton / 13:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Aguilera's forthcoming album[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Christina Aguilera's forthcoming album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No title. No release date. No tracklist. Sources are generally reliable, but don't say anything of substance. Crystal violation. Kww (talk) 20:25, 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 (WP:SNOW) and Salt --JForget 01:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donkey Kong Wii[edit]

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

It's been nominated for deletion two times now. This incarnation is a one-liner with no sources (Crystal Kong?). Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 20:22, 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 as unsourced. —Sean Whitton / 13:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Joseph Inman[edit]

Jerry Joseph Inman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. Article asserts notability (thus failing the criteria for a speedy), but the only notability actually provided is a you-tube video series, which would fail WP:RS. Article also asserts 'internationally recognized speaker and negotiater (sic)' but fails to back this up. CultureDrone (talk) 20:15, 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.  Sandstein  20:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sex crimes against Asian women in the United States[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Sex crimes against Asian women in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is unencyclopedic and bordered on contentious. It has an incrediably small focus and I feel it is unnecessary to have an article on this topic. Are sexual assaults against Asian women, awful as they may be, worthy of their own article? No, we're not an indiscriminate collection of information. Are the motivations (primarily racist as this article seems to imply) that different from sexual assaults against white women, black women, Hispanic women, etc? Are Asian women not sexually assaulted anywhere else in the world?

The article appears to be a mixture of psychology - which could be merged with rape or racism- and a list of specific assaults. For a start, I doubt any of these women want the incident catalogged in an encyclopedia! Merge the relevent content with rape and rascism and delete the list. Escape Artist Swyer Talk to me The mess I've made 19:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the nom barely mentioned merging. And only the relevant information, which there is none. It's all Original research and is essentially an essay. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 11:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

)Shame on you! So racist violence towards women is not important enough???173.54.13.112 (talk) 16:30, 21 January 2012 (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) 12:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whitaker Malloy[edit]

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

Non-notable group that fails WP:MUSIC. There are no independent sources, no album and not even signed to a record company. Two of the three members were semi-finalists on American Idol (season 7), so they are not even notable to have their own articles. Aspects (talk) 19:12, 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 Nomination withdrawn. Adequate reference establishing notability was absent at the time of the nomination. Non-admin closing. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 18:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vyvyane Loh[edit]

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

Contested prod. Author of unclear notability. Delete. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 18:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I started this article about Vyvyane Loh and don't really see why it shouldn't be here. She's a contemporary writer who's first book was very well received. I'm not sure if the deletion notice was put here by a bot or a person, but I don't really think it's warranted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wassermn (talk • contribs) 18:49, 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. BJTalk 02:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stoned Fish Gaming[edit]

Stoned Fish Gaming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Author removed endorsed prod without explanation or editing to adress the concerns raised, which were that this group has no reliable sources to establish it's notability. Beeblbrox (talk) 17:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • sorry guys, speedy and PROD have already been tried, that's why we're here. Beeblbrox (talk) 17:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, apparently speedy deletion was declined, according to the article's history. MuZemike (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I kind of doubt it is a hoax, as they do have a website with chat forums, etc, but even the administrators are listed as "newbies" at the forum, so probably it is just too new and unknown to qualify as notable. Beeblbrox (talk) 20:39, 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: early closing per WP:SNOWBALL -- The Anome (talk) 11:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why you need an ISO Standard facility for Drive rebuilds[edit]

Why you need an ISO Standard facility for Drive rebuilds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Fails WP:SOAP and WP:NOT#HOWTO. Delete. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 17:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean WP:NOT#WEBSPACE, right? Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 20:18, 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.

Fourth_Studio_Album[edit]

The result was merge/redirect (non-admin close) Beeblbrox (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Crystal Ball, no definate information available for such album yet Alankc (talk) 16:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Title is generic, confusing. Merge with Kelly Clarkson. 99.11.4.201 (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge tag applied. Help us out here, 99? --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With my magic crystal ball, I am going to predict that I will say to merge all relevant info with Kelly Clarkson --Numyht (talk) 17:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the relevant information is now in the Clarkson article, so I will attempt to redirect, as was already tried before. Really, I think the article can be deleted, but who wants to get Cluebot mad? On second thought, methinks to leave it until someone with better working knowledge (read:administrator) appears. 99.11.4.201 (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And at this point, one supposes that an administrator must close this discussion before any actions are taken. 99.11.4.201 (talk) 17:59, 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 Redirect to Castlevania: Symphony of the Night; objections can go through usual channels (non-admin closure). Nifboy (talk) 03:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ring of Varda[edit]

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

Article gives no indication of its real-world notability. A Google search reveals no coverage outside forums discussing the game, and those don't suggest it's special enough to have attracted any mainstream sources. Was originally tagged for speedy with db-bio, which is clearly wrong. Olaf Davis | Talk 16:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Leaning towards Strong Delete Clearly isn't Notable --Numyht (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do, however, understand the rationale behind redirection. I change to Weak Delete or Redirect. Rationale above remains the same. MuZemike (talk) 19:10, 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 (non-admin closure). Article was Speedy Deleted. Edward321 (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yan Sumaili[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic. ChaChaFut (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Delete Not only does this fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:CRYSTAL, but it could have easily made up --Numyht (talk) 16:57, 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. PhilKnight (talk) 12:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guinness world records, 2009[edit]

Guinness world records, 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I see absolutely no need for Wikipedia to have articles on individual books in an annual series, rather than having a simple Guinness World Records article for the book in general. Georgia guy (talk) 16:33, 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. PhilKnight (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alessandro Tuia[edit]

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

Contested PROD, youth football player born in 1990 who fails WP:ATHLETE (no first team appearances in a fully professional league). Angelo (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Delete Not only does this fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:CRYSTAL, but it could have easily made up --Numyht (talk) 17:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A quick Google search would have eliminated that possibility you know. ugen64 (talk) 21:46, 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. Wizardman 01:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joez Peralta[edit]

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

Obvious hoax. He was born in 1983, yet he has stats from playing in the mid-1980s. He also has a slew of MLB awards. Baseball-Reference has no record of this individual. NatureBoyMD (talk) 16:22, 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 No consensus. I'd relist, but I doubt anything more useful would come out of it: there has been plenty of discussion already. —Sean Whitton / 13:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New prog[edit]

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

This article is documenting a neologism. There are several sources on the page; however, only one article makes explicit use of the term as a genre name (the Times article) and even then only uses it as one of three possible terms. More often than not, the "genre" term is used in a happenstance manner (i.e. "this new prog rock..."). Moreover, many of the soures do not even use the term: the Entertainment Weekly article "Prog Rocks Again" gives various names for newer progressive rock bands and "New Prog" is not listed among them. Furthermore, the style itself is not notable, being a very limited example of recent progressive rock. DeletionAccount (talk) 15:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a more detailed rationale for deletion. This article is an exercise in original research by synthesis. It collects uses of the term "new prog" in certain music articles about bands, and uses those quotes to make an article on new prog itself, rather than on the bands. The problem with this is clear from an OR point of view.

Moreover, there are no sources given that actually on the topic of "new prog" itself, as would be required for notability. Incidental mentions in other works don't suffice for WP:N here.

Detailed examination of the sources provided shows that many of them only use the phrase "the new prog". Examples:

These articles are not trying to define something called "new prog"; they are just using the adjective "new" to describe the type of prog that certain bands represent. As a thought experiment, imagine if I wrote an article on the "next mayor of town" by accumulating all the news articles that use the term "next mayor".

The final quote above is particularly telling. If the music industry itself has not settled on a name for this genre (or, indeed, decided that it isn't just the next stage of prog rock itself), we are only speculating by collecting their quotes and making an article on "new prog". These things need to be settled in the real world before we try to write an article about them on Wikipedia. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And also 'New Prog Heroes', 'the so-called front-runners of the "new-prog" movement', which seem clearly non-incidental usages, especially the latter. Numerous genre tags are formed by this sort of "new", "post-" and similar malarkey, and obviously are often used in ways that the modifier could be read as being non-atomic. Sources that assert that this is a valid concept, but with a non-stable name are likewise not compelling arguments for deletion, just for noting said terminological variation. You make some valid points about the rigour of the current article text, none of which in my view comes close to a case for turning new prog into a redlink, which is the issue we're being asked to consider here. Bear in mind that we've significant internal linkage to the term as a genre descriptor, so we'd not be making a non-local change: if those descriptors are poorly-referenced, better to clean those up first. (On which good luck: I suspect the pecentage of musical articles in which the infobox-genre field coincides with a consensus of reliable sources (which see below) is somewhere between 'small' and 'statistically significant'.) As I've said, I'd be perfectly happy to merge into the main prog article and redirect, which would have been better accomplished by continuing the discussion there (rather than ignoring the point being made there, and using a throwaway SP account to go venue-shopping here). As I said there, the main issue here is not occurrence of the terminology, neologism, or referencing, but whether this is sufficiently separately notable and coherent a concept to merit a distinct article, as against a section or discussion in passing in progressive rock. Alai (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the issue is the independent notability of this concept, or lack of that notability. My point in the above quotes is that the sources in the article only mention the name of the article incidentally, and don't discuss "new prog" itself in any way. If this article deleted, that doesn't stop merging some text to the main prog rock article and redirecting the title there. Indeed, that's one possible outcome of the deletion discussion. The point of the AFD is to discuss the independent notability of this particular concept. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You could, of course, merge certain things into Progressive rock -- after all, there are a mountain of sources referring to these bands as prog rock -- but the question here is not whether these bands are prog rock or notable. The question is whether or not this article is documenting a neologism and non-notable style. More importantly, if you dig around, you'll find dramatically-different views about what new prog is. That is, at best, as noted below, "new prog" is just prog that is new. Is it Dillinger Escape Plan or is it Muse or is it Lightning Bolt or is it Porcupine Tree? These bands have much of nothing in common aside from era -- a common problem for neologisms. It is, of course, possible that the term will become notable, but for now it's just a term meaning prog rock that is new. As the EW article notes, "the new prog doesn't yet have an official name (neo-prog? post-prog? prog 2.0?)" -- no new-prog to be seen there, and an admission that the "new prog" genre here is just a prog rock revival similar to the original neo-prog. 81.51.232.219 (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Clearly mostly of them are primarily about an album or a band, but for example the Times "Prog rock? Just say yes" is clearly discussing it as a concept (at least in passing, before wallowing in general proggy nostalgia at some length). "Prog Rocks Again" is not dissimilar in that respect. Deletion is not part of the merge-and-redirect process, unless there's some compelling reason for expunging the edit history, which I think is clearly not going to be the case here. It's a possible outcome from AFD only in (dare I say) an "incidental" manner, by way of being a "keep with words to the wise" result. (Thus my frustration with the on-going having in effect been discussion inefficiently and foreseeably ineffectually moved to this location, and thence to several others.) Whether merged or not, some suitably-sourced hedging as to whether it is really is a 'distinct' genre, or just "recent instances" of prog (or whatever else), would seem to be appropriate. I don't think Wikipedia should be attempting to come to a definitive conclusion on that at present, and certainly this discussion can't hope to. Alai (talk) 23:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, it's not a question of whether or not there are new prog rock bands. There are, and there have been new prog rock bands for every decade since the original prog rock appeared. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia; it will never decide what is or is not a distinct genre. Wikipedia merely documents, and the documentation here is dubious. We see 543 hits on Google News and maybe 50 of them refer to music (and of them, most talk about Entertainment Weekly's May 2005 feature which this article references and the rest talk about "new prog rock"). Not to wikilawyer, but from WP:NEO: "If the article is not verifiable (see Reliable sources for neologisms, below) then it constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research and consequently cannot be accepted by Wikipedia. This is true even though there may be many examples of the term in use." Furthermore, "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term." And finally, "Neologisms that are in wide use—but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources—are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." The point here is indeed to redlink the article. If there is notable information about progressive rock artists, it can be placed in the progressive rock article, but not under the heading of a neologism and not as a WP:OR genre. 81.51.232.219 (talk) 00:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Carl's claim that there are no articles specifically on this genre is wrong: The Times article is one such, as Alai says above. Bondegezou (talk) 23:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Responded below. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's make a point here. First, the real article minus obvious synthesis can be found on my user-talk. All I did here was remove unreferenced statements and references which did not mention the "new prog" genre or refer to the bands as members of the genre (most simply called them progressive rock).
And here's what's worse: the sources are dramatically incoherent. EW calls the music aggressive and technical, citing SOAD, Dillinger Escape Plan, Lightning Bolt, Coheed and Cambria, and The Mars Volta. They specifically refer to how aggressive the music is -- "[They] create incredibly complex and inventive music that sounds like a heavier, more aggressive version of '70s behemoths such as Led Zeppelin and King Crimson." Now, take The Guardian Unlimited: "However much Radiohead and Muse may revile their "new prog" tag, their music is as aloof, intellectual and didactic as anything Pink Floyd or King Crimson produced." For those of you not aware, neither of those bands fit EW's description. Then we have the Times, which draws reference to old symphonic prog. Slightly inconsistent, perhaps? Is anyone talking about the same thing? Is it a genre or is it a period? Or is a it a "genre" that happens to exist because "new prog" is just too easy to inadvertently coin? 81.51.232.219 (talk) 01:34, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avon Junkies[edit]

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

Two main problems:

  1. The article is a collection of quotes, making it very poorly written and extremely close to copyright infringement
  2. The only independent reliable source is Staten Island Live, which is a local paper, so I don't think the group meets music notability guidelines.Wafulz (talk) 15:49, 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 Redirect to Bouncer (doorman). Hut 8.5 17:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Door picker[edit]

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

I'm nominating this article based on the following:
The opinions: (1) Not notable. If it is deemed notable through reliable sources, it should be merged with Bouncer (doorman); (2) Not Encyclopaedic.
The facts: (a) (as part of the pre-nomination criteria) the only direct incoming links are 3 redirects, all of which were created by the editor upon article creation. One of these redirects is linked on 1 article, but an in-text citation would work better; (b) there is no revision history (not a good reason in itself, of course, but it adds to the overall nomination); (b) Unverifiable—the current "source" (the external site) leads to the message "The system cannot find the file specified." A search of this site revealed no guide exists. Plus, as the Ministry of Sound is one of the "more exclusive clubs", all info has been obtained from a primary source. — Skittleys (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Jезка and Esradekan --Numyht (talk) 17:01, 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.  Sandstein  20:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia[edit]

Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced. Going through AFD because being a Wikipedia version may make it ineligible for A7 Sceptre (talk) 14:50, 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 and redirect. —Sean Whitton / 13:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RJ (Family Guy)[edit]

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

Extremely minor "Family Guy" character. JuJube (talk) 13:44, 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. —Sean Whitton / 13:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Underbanked[edit]

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


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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 17:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edward petrossi[edit]

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

WP:BIO1E of a California store owner who foiled a robbery and got a burst of publicity. No WP:RS coverage since. Prod disputed on the grounds that he has become a YouTube phenomenon. No references to back this up. No evidence of lasting interest. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 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 Delete as non-notable. —Sean Whitton / 13:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BlackSky Productions[edit]

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

I've never heard of this artist or label. Article reads like an advertisement. Google search turns up nil. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 13:07, 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 non-notable. —Sean Whitton / 13:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IKenj[edit]

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

Although the article quality is good, the subject doesn't seem notable enough; he has still not succeeded MySpace fame. StaticGull  Talk  12:35, 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 per WP:SNOW. -- RyRy (talk) 00:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pratap Chatterjee[edit]

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

article fails to assert why this radio personality is notable. Lacks 3rd party verifiable references. Rtphokie (talk) 12:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'I think you misunderstand WP:BIO. That guideline sets out guidelines for determining whether a topic is notable, which is not a temporary property: a subject is and will always be notable, or it is not. References are evidence as to notability, not the notability in and of itself. A subject can be notable without having references supporting that assertion, which is what the case is here, in my opinion. Dylan (talk) 02:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You are correct that references provide evidence of notability. The references in this article do not provide convincing evidence of notability. Has this journalist received any awards or other honors that could be more easily referenced with a 3rd party?--Rtphokie (talk) 01:40, 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.  Sandstein  20:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neoism (political ideology)[edit]

Neoism (political ideology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Cannot quite call this original research because it references a website. But I suspect that the website was created by the author of this article. Non-notable new theory. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though perhaps not quite mainstream or entirely verifiable information, maybe this article (and its author) should be given a chance at elaboration and further explanations... Besides, what is being advocated does not sound so unfavorable or absurd anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paxari (talk • contribs) 19:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC) — Paxari (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]


First of all, I merely contributed to the creation of the website and Neoism is NOT a theory it is an IDEOLOGY. Second of all, one of Wikipedia’s so-called editors misspelled Independent as “inpedpendant “, if this is the intellectual caliber of the individuals judging my article then I have certainly lost a lot of respect for Wikipedia.


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

The result was speedily deleted as a hoax/vandalism page (CSD G3). The article was first created as a vanity page, and when it was deleted, the user chose to recreate it as a hoax page. This is getting tiresome. Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Davis[edit]

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

Apparent hoax article about someone called Justin Davis claiming, amongst other things, that he was in the Rolling Stones for two weeks. The article includes a picture of Mick and Keith with the subtitle identifying Mick as this Justin Davis fellow. The references and Google do not lend any support to the claims. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 11:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks as if this has been done before - User talk:Elkman#And another.... I like the idea of a "lead bassist" though. Does that make Dick Taylor rhythm bassist? Who played tenor tambourine? Or baritone maracas? Would this hit CSD G4 for recreation of deleted material?Booglamay (talk) 11:47, 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 to do anything in particular with this, so defaulting to keep. —Sean Whitton / 13:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica King[edit]

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

Article about a dancer whose claim to fame is that she was a contestant on a reality show, had to withdraw due to injury, but "aims to grow as a dancer and an artist through her experience within So You Think You Can Dance". PROD removed with the comment "I think everyone who makes it to the top ten and joins the SYTYCD tour meets the notability threshold". I don't agree, so I bring it here for other views. There is an earlier AfD for this name, but not the same person. JohnCD (talk) 10:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing wrong with the Jessica King page, and if I see something I feel unnecessary on the page it can easily be edited/deleted.
It basically is there to inform people of this contestant, just like many other contestant pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.67.169 (talk) 10:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have moved the above remarks here from the talk page where they were posted, and interpreted them as a "Keep" !vote. My reply is that having some articles about non-notable reality show contestants is not a good reason for adding more - see WP:WAX. JohnCD (talk) 11:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think that coverage really falls under the heading of "People notable only for one event" - see WP:BIO1E. Merge to a list of contestants could be the way to go. JohnCD (talk) 15:21, 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. —Sean Whitton / 14:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of fraternities and sororities at University of Texas at Austin[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of fraternities and sororities at University of Texas at Austin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I came in for some criticism for speedily deleting a similar list for the University of Southern Mississippi on the grounds of it being a group with no notability. For me, groups and lists are not mutually exclusive, and I consider these articles are merely groups of societies that have a membership.

I see no encyclopaedic value here. Whilst the fraternities and sororities may in themselves be notable, the fact that they exist at a given university is not. From a non-US point of view, it's a little like "List of sports clubs at University of Kent" or "List of social clubs at Essex University" or "Motoring clubs for Civil Servants". I can accept that an individual fraternity or sorority at an individual university could be notable, but there is no indication that this is the case for any of those listed here. Deb (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is already huge. I think you have a point with the notability thing, but merging into the main article is problematic in itself. RayAYang (talk) 08:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To paraphrase that slightly, MacDonalds, KFC, Subway and Pizza Hut are notable; New York, Vancouver, London, Paris are notable, so we should have 'List of fast food outlets in New York', 'List of fast food outlets in Vancouver', etc.? (actually, WP:NOTDIR explicitly says no to these) -- Ratarsed (talk) 12:15, 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. Ty 04:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arto Alanenpää[edit]

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

A photographer in his twenties who seems to have done well in minor contests, who has pronounced religious views, who has occasionally got into some kind of dispute about religion, but about whom I can find very little information. There's a claim that he's published a book, but Google has no mention of it other than in this article, and apparently it has no ISBN, which sounds odd. Prod added earlier, prod removed. I hope that he has a great future, whereupon he may have an article. But I think an article is premature. Hoary (talk) 10:20, 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 deleted. Article blanked by original author. -- Longhair\talk 09:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St. Bedes Anglo Indian Higher Secondary School[edit]

St. Bedes Anglo Indian Higher Secondary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not suitible for wikipedia. Chafford (talk) 08:38, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Main Page/Archive 4

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ——RyanLupin • (talk) 08:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dar-e-Arqam Schools[edit]

Dar-e-Arqam Schools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable educational establishment Chafford (talk) 08:31, 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 deleted, no content. -- Longhair\talk 09:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advantages of subdatasets in ireport[edit]

Advantages of subdatasets in ireport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Chafford (talk) 08:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: should this be speedily deleted, just being one line of text? Wongm (talk) 08:58, 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 deleted, nn bio. -- Longhair\talk 08:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chinno B. Marquez[edit]

Chinno B. Marquez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Once again, notability issues. Chafford (talk) 08:26, 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. PhilKnight (talk) 12:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bhaiji Ramesh Bhai Oza[edit]

Bhaiji Ramesh Bhai Oza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability issues, and I feel that this article is using wikipedia as a religious soapbox. Chafford (talk) 08:18, 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.

Eric camerota[edit]

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), invoking WP:SNOWBALL as Olympic competition is obviously notable. Whpq (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC) I filed this AFD note at 08:15 AM UK time, it is now 19:50 PM UK time, and consensus is to keep. Chafford (talk) 18:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Stub, provides no information and the formatting went awry. Chafford (talk) 08:15, 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. PhilKnight (talk) 12:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2009 in Music[edit]

2009 in Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Who can be sure that what is written in this article is solid fact and not just speculation, it is for that reason I request deletion of this article. Chafford (talk) 08:12, 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 Nomination withdrawn although please do the necessary updates before it gets flagged again--JForget 01:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What Is Cooking?[edit]

What Is Cooking? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to fail future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources can confirm that shooting has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and support withdraw per reliable source that filming took place. These foreign films' backgrounds are tough to produce, eh? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:03, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk.bizarre[edit]

Talk.bizarre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I also nominate the redirect Newsfroup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I decline to speedy this, since the article has sufficient content that one might consider the newsgroup in question to be notable. However, the newsgroup may remain non-notable. Richard Cavell (talk) 07:34, 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 --JForget 01:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrexham & Shropshire Route (diagram)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Wrexham & Shropshire Route (diagram) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a confusing one. It started life as Wrexham & Shropshire Route. It was put for deletion. The consensus was for merge with Wrexham & Shropshire. Well Gwen Gale felt as though there wasn't enough content to merge with the main article, so she deleted it. Well just before the first AfD started, Mpvide65 created a template (Template:Wrexham & Shropshire Route) that contained the information that was in the route article. On July 4th, that template was nominated for deletion. Mpvide65 then immediately moved the template to Wrexham & Shropshire Route (diagram). So now we're basically back where we started. I ran into this because I was about to delete the template per a template for deletion. This Wrexham & Shropshire Route (diagram) article actually has less content than the original deleted article had. It's still essentially just a template with a very small lead paragraph. I don't personally have an opinion here. I'm just presenting this because this needs to be resolved one way or another. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:07, 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 04:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bôtchô[edit]

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

Notability not asserted. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I found another source. I'm feeling notability isn't much of an issue if we could find two sources on it, which are quite independent of each other. My initial concern was if such a cream was fictitious, but at least that has been taken care of. So, may be we should keep the article. —KetanPanchaltaLK 06:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to this, it seems that if that is all we can find, that's ok, but a translation may be required eventually. Beeblbrox (talk) 17:56, 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. —Sean Whitton / 14:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ain't (Remyx LP)[edit]

Ain't (Remyx LP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This topic has been re-created after an uncontested ((prod)). No claim of notability in the article, nor are there any references--not to mention the secondary, substantial references required to demonstrate notability. Mikeblas (talk) 04:37, 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 --JForget 01:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

South Fork Fire[edit]

South Fork Fire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article failes to state any sources, not notable since it wasn't a major fire. Bidgee (talk) 04:11, 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), the article has obviously now been expanded beyond a dicdef. Kotniski (talk) 10:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overspending[edit]

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

Little more than a dictionary definition, and I can't see how it would be expanded into an actual encyclopedia article. Already has wiktionary:overspending entry. ZimZalaBim talk 03:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please see our editing policy which explains the method of a Wiki - that we should nuture such seedling stubs rather than stamping upon them. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:30, 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.

Encyclopedia Dramatica[edit]

The result was speedy keep - we've been through this too many times, and last one was far too recent. See my comments on the last AfD. Al Tally talk 11:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a completely non-notable website. It fails WP:N (more specifically WP:WEB) and doesn't have a neutral point of view. Alexfusco5 02:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the article isn't POV then why does it state only positive things about ED, and makes no mention of criticism and it doesn't meet any of the criteria at WP:WEB. Alexfusco5 03:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So what criticism from reliable sources are we to include? Protonk (talk) 03:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Man, and I was this close to responding with something about how it would need OVER 9000 sources!!!! but on the off chance you were serious, I held back.  ;) Protonk (talk) 04:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the website has a traffic rank of 2,459, that doesn't make it notable. Alexfusco5 03:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, just because a large number of Wikipedians dislike a site, that doesn't make it non-notable. Not directed at anyone in particular, but among those claiming non-notability as a basis for deletion, it's going to be quite difficult to sort out those who actually believe this from those who simply wanted something a bit less obvious than "delete because I hate it." It's worth pointing out that it's only been two months since the last AfD, which was indeed quite an expansive discussion including a large number of people -- what has changed since then? – Luna Santin (talk) 03:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, ED was covered again by Dibbel at a talk for GLS 2008. Talk discusses and reprises elements of the wired article, but is distinct enough to be a source. Protonk (talk) 03:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also gais check out mai usarbokz! :) ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(Ταλκ) 04:12, 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 A7 by Jauerback, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 04:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joe hollywood[edit]

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

Disputed Prod. Teenage reality TV "star" and internet celebrity. No WP:RS coverage cited or found to establish notability. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 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. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 04:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solo-67[edit]

Solo-67 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The author requests more time to improve the article, so I have (generously) declined to speedily delete it. However, the subject of the article appears to be non-notable. Richard Cavell (talk) 02:01, 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), as notability has been confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liga Nacional de Baloncesto Profesional[edit]

Liga Nacional de Baloncesto Profesional (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

no notability asserted; lacks citations Mr. E. Sánchez Wanna know my story?/ Share yours with me! 01:28, 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 — caknuck ° is back from his wikisiesta 15:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alt.usage.english[edit]

Alt.usage.english (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Another non-notable newsgroup. No reliable third party sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 01:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Weak Delete for the moment, per Dhartung's comment below. In fact, the GoogleBooks results are not that bad, 43 hits[23]. However, it is true that they all seem to be passing mentions. Still, one should probably dig a little deeper here, as this subject might in fact be notable. Nsk92 (talk) 02:22, 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 — caknuck ° is back from his wikisiesta 15:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rec.arts.tv.soaps.cbs[edit]

Rec.arts.tv.soaps.cbs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable newsgroup. Fork of a newsgroup that's red linked, no reliable sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 00:59, 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. —Sean Whitton / 14:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Tienan[edit]

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

Generally non-notable. Tagged as such since November 2007. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 00:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy keep under criterion #1: no editor, including the nominator, recommends deletion of the articles. Mergers are a separate process. (Secondarily, the nominator has been blocked for sockpuppetry.) —C.Fred (talk) 16:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk Sutherland[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Added Note: A regular search of any of these turns up very little besides episode guides and ITV (the network the show is on). -- Dodgechris (talk | contribs) 11:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The full list of characters I'm nominating:

What of Kelly Crabtree, Vernon Tomlin, Chesney Battersby-Brown, Dev Alahan, Carla Connor, Becky Granger, Tina McIntyre, Harry Mason and Dan Mason? -- Dodgechris (talk)

I have had no choice but to renominate Carla Connor - she has previously been nominated in 2007, but the article was kept -- Dodgechris (talk)

I am still concerned about Kirk and Molly having their own page -- Dodgechris (talk)

What shall i do with the rest of the characters on the deletion list? -- Dodgechris (talk)

Keep as a trainwreck. It's quite clear that the nominator hasn't quite decided what should happen to each individual article. Those that stand on its own should not be nominated. Those that should be merged to a list of characters can be dealt with outside of AFD. And if there are any left at the end of the activity, then they can be nominated for AFD then. -- Whpq (talk) 19:26, 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. Shereth 21:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

32 East Third Street[edit]

32 East Third Street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Is this even notable? It's a residence. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 00:00, 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 keep. John254 04:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cartographic aggression[edit]

Cartographic aggression (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rarely used neologism. Article only exists to push an agenda. --Pjacobi (talk) 12:44, 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 all. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Curran (actor)[edit]

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

Article is about a 4-5 year old who played a baby/toddler in the BBC soap EastEnders. Seeing as baby actors are essentially living props, and would have gone without an actual line I would suggest they are non-notable. Certainly they would not appear to fufil the criteria set out by WP:Entertainer. For the same reason, I am also nominating:

HornetMike (talk) 20:09, 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 Looks like the snow's come early this year. Added a "citations needed" template. Grutness...wha? 01:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Dictionary[edit]

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

irrelevant/self-publicity Lucas Ayala (talk) 20:45, 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.
More