< July 19	July 21 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nominator wants to Keep the article, this AfD also wasn't properly listed or AfD tagged on the article. The article is currently prodded, which of course can be removed by any editor, should they so wish. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 01:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lankan fashion[edit]

This is an artcle which under the category of "Category:Fashion by nationality", details of the fashion related things of each country.

Strong Keep : I recommend to keep this article as there are no proper reasons for deletion. The user suggested this article for deletion mentioned poorly sourced and better to suggest to improve the article rather than deletion.--Lanka07 (talk) 21:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep/close The nominator states no real reason to delete this. Besides that, the article is notable, so there really isn't any reason to delete. -- RyRy (talk) 00:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Keeper ǀ 76 16:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'101' as a teaching method for Philosophy[edit]

I have had second thoughts on the piece, which as alrady expalined, occured to me after reding the exisiting page on the number '101'. The title is inappropriate and I think has caused most of the resentment, which bears resemblance to the 'second problem' with Wikipedia identified by Larry Sanger, which is that subject specialists are resented and attacked by non-specialists... .

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_Wikipedia_is_not_so_great#Behavioral.2Fcultural_problems too...

Anyway, I have now moved the page under a title that more accurately represents its intention: 'Teaching Methods in Philosophy'. In addition, I have rewritten it and I hope that any 'good faith' editors will remove their comments below which are now referring to somethign taht has been extensively 'improved'. Of course, the notice should be removed too.

Docmartincohen (talk) 12:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Comments on the original version of the page are here[edit]

Article, created by User:Docmartincohen, talks heavily of Martin Cohen's work on the subject, making it pretty clearly self promotion. No assertion of notability, and reads heavily like original research. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A promotional piece singing the virtues of Dr. Martin Cohen's book, 101 Philosophy Problems. Created by a user identified as User:Docmartincohen. Whether it's the author, or a fan of the author, this thinly disguised ad is contrary to the philosophy of Wikipedia. Mandsford (talk) 23:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure the artcile is coherent and referenced but also uncritical and apparently self-promoting. I was goinge to suggest Merge with the main article on the book 101 Philosophy Problems - but the article doesn't exist (apparently - maybe I mispelt it or something).Nick Connolly (talk) 00:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional essay. Gamaliel (talk) 04:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 08:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 08:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination: obvious conflict of interest, and no real claims of notability as a method. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recognise a few of these names as the usual 'stalkers, but no matter... there are pages that are promotional eg.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Truth_Matters

We could create a page for the book '101 Philosophy Problems', if the consensus here is that there should be one... that seems like promotional to me but... this page is about teaching methods in philosophy. I am a 'real life' figure involved, but I ma not making any personal gain from describing the issues. I have rejigged the text again to remove anything vaguely self-complimentary, but pages are not normally deleted, but improved. As I say, the reason this one is up for deletion is wiki-stalkers nothing really worth trying to rationalise with I guess.

How many of those voting 'delete' are knowledgable or interested in the topic? Obviously no one. Seems funny that they should be saying what should and should not be on the page. More than that, this is a clear violation fo the principles of the Wikipedia community - where admin tools are not used in place of attemtps to achieve consensus. And don't say lots of editors are in favour of deletion! The consensus we need is of people intersted in the best course for an article on teaching methods in philosophy, and in particuular the new approach (I helped research, implement etc) which breaks issues down in the way described here.

Docmartincohen (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability, no google news results, no google books, no google scholar, no google really either. I would say that the subject is not notable (as it fails notability guidelines). —Atyndall ^{[citation needed]} 11:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the comments on the new version, 'Teaching Methods in Philosophy' are here[edit]

My previous comments stand - this is half original research, half promotion for Cohen's book. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phil has followed my edit history and reversed my edits on completely seperate and unrelated issues: Wikistalking. I have posted this now on the Adminstrators noticeboard asking for intervention.

Docmartincohen (talk) 17:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, are you calling my response to you on an AfD I started further evidence of wikistalking? Because otherwise, this seems immaterial to my noting that I do not think your "new version" is any better. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability established, major COI. Seems like vanityspamicruft. DreamGuy (talk) 19:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Clear vanispamcuft ukexpat (talk) 19:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability issues, COI. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 20:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revised[edit]

May I remind the enthusiasitc deletionists of the relevant policy: improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page. No attemtps AT ALL have been made to improve this page...

I've re-edited again, although I should say, it begins to lose its purpose as a reference article... I'm not saying people are wrong to see an 'advert' here, its an interesting one... Wikipolicy allows people to describe their own work - the editors here all assume it is an automatic COI. I'm not too bothered about the deletion either way, I'm just exploring what 'is' and 'is not' considered suitable here... I can always use the best bits of my edits on Wikipedia elsewhere so its not a problem.

Docmartincohen (talk) 21:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I don't have a problem with his recent version; and I suggest the title Philosophy education, as we have for many other subjects, see ((Education by subject)). Merzul (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still delete. This is original research. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Today alone, Docmartincohen has inserted references to his own Philosophical Tales book into the Philosophy entry and the Chinese Philosophy entry (twice!), and it appears here as well. This all seems like vanity spamming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Themoabird (talk • contribs) 23:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to clean up this article a bit so that we can discuss the material itself rather than User:Docmartincohen. I obviously can't defend the quality of this entry, I know very little about the topic and the sources aren't exactly peer-reviewed journals on education; but maybe a low quality article as a starting point for Philosophy education is be better than nothing, or maybe not... I personally stand by my "weak keep"; and other people are of course welcome to judge this themselves; but I encourage you to try to forget about this user's history and decide what to do with this GFDL-contributed material independently of that. Merzul (talk) 00:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep under the name of Philosophy education, as Phil suggests, and with the goal of making it an article of how philosophy is teached. This can still be hammered into shape until it becomes a good article., and I'm sure that there are sources about how to teach philosophy that can be used. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:N. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timber, Oil, and Coal Country Drive[edit]

Haven't found any evidence that this road exists. It appears to be just a stretch of U.S. Route 6. The source that is listed supports the info that is given, but doesn't identify the road in any way. D.B.^{talk•contribs} 22:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the lists of Pennsylvania-related deletions and Transportation-related deletions.
Delete - Been looking closely at google maps in the area described in the article and i can't find any designation of US 6 with this name. The "directions" don't seem to always jive with the map either. Zero g-hits outside of Wikipedia or mirrors. For an existing American road, there should be something. --Oakshade (talk) 00:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apparently non-notable route which is not known by this name. This name is probably not the actual name of a road, but a label given to a recommended driving route, which may or may not have been assigned by the National Geographic editors who wrote the cited source. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note, I found another article with the same problems as this one. --D.B.^{talk•contribs} 11:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google maps turns up nothing, neither news, nor search. Road seems to be non-notable and fails notability criteria. —Atyndall ^{[citation needed]} 11:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that there is no WP:NOR definition of "luxury car". Sandstein 17:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Luxury Cars[edit]

A list of "desirable or expensive" cars. How do you define that? I think my car is desirable, but you probably wouldn't. This list is never going to work, and producing it can only be an exercise in original research. Ros0709 (talk) 22:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Give it a chance. This could, maybe, perhaps be an encyclopedic list without a lot of WP:OR, but it was created on 17:49, July 20, 2008 and nominated for deletion on 18:17, July 20, 2008. Let's give it a chance, eh? ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 22:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I appreciate Jethro Thompson's initiative and welcome him to contribute to Wikipedia, this one is covered better by [Category:Luxury motor vehcile manufacturers]. Userfy it if you think that you can offer more information than simply the names of models of cars. Mandsford (talk) 00:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is another well intended list that is inherently WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Even getting rid of the lead-in describing cars as "desirable or expensive" as these are highly relative terms depending on where you are in the world. In that sense, it takes on a very First World POV. If the list were better tailored to something like: Cars with suggested retail values of over >>insert monetary value here<<, then it is more acceptable. Given that there is a category that fits the bill, I would rather have to deal with that than a list/article. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Regretfully, as its a good initiative that maybe could work somehow in another context, but just this title requirement makes it terminally WP:NPOV. For eg. there's no universal industry concept of 'luxury'- an example (off the top of my petrolhead) would be UK/European and US perceptions of the Vauxhall Omega aka Cadillac Catera. I can foresee endless such issues with a low chance of resolution and hence an article that's going to end up all templates and Talk Page. Plutonium27 (talk) 01:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lists and categories may duplicate coverage. I don't feel that it constitutes original research to compile a list like this as all it requires is finding a secondary source (say, Road and Track) to declare the car to be a luxury car and then it goes on the list. If, perhaps, we were making a list of "ranking of luxury cars from best to worst" or "list of unappreciated luxury cars" or something along those lines, we would be right to declare the article OR. As it stands the list is exceedingly bare (and includes an open wheeled race car...), so I'm not worried about the list introducing editorial content. I've advocated deletion of lists in the past without some "unifying secondary document", but I don't think this list needs one. Literally all we are looking as is "Luxury yes/no" for inclusion. As for claims of WP:IINFO, I'm not so sure. IINFO is there to prevent lists of arbitrary classification or minimal standards from ballooning--an article on "Russian expatriates" or an article on "the times someone said 'centipede' on a TV show" would fit under this category. In this case the list can't possibly (by definition) be more indiscriminate than the List of cars. This one is a keeper. Protonk (talk) 05:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow you. I fully agree that a list and category (or for that matter two articles) can have overlap. As I noted (and you agree) if we could impose a strict definition as to what constitutes a "luxury car" then perhaps there could be something ... but from what I'm hearing, there is no consensus among the people who want to keep this article that imposing a definition is what is wanted. You also mention that this may not be considered under WP:IINFO, stating something like "Russian Expatriates" would be indiscriminate. Actually, I would find Russian Expatriates to be non-indiscriminate: this is a list for people born in Russia who moved elsewhere. That's a pretty tight definition. At issue is what source defines "luxury". I used to drive a Ford Escort LX (the LX being "Luxury Edition"). I could find many reliable sources that call that old escort a luxury vehicle, and by what people are saying, it would be includible on this list .... but I think we all know that this list is not for Ford Escorts. You also note that this list can't be more indiscriminate than List of cars. Cars are fairly easy to define. I hope I've demonstrated that "luxury" is far more arbitrary and "indiscriminate" than what would be good for an encyclopedia. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is not impossible to define luxury cars for the purpose of the list. For example, we might define luxury cars to be those considered by the car manufactures aimed at the high-end market. -- Taku (talk) 07:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we have to define anything then it is original research. The definition has to appear in a WP:RS. Ros0709 (talk) 15:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously i will say this, as i have created the page, but i believe that it is possible to define 'luxury' as a car aimed at the higher-end market. You may then argue that you can't define 'the higher end of the market'. This debate could go on forever, and people would edit the page all the time, but if people remove/add cars to the list, then the ones that always remain can be defined, by an unofficial ballot (of not removing it from the page), that it is a luxury car. Also, i don't feel that this article/list is really covered in the rest of wikipedia, and so thats presumably why somebody put List of Exotic Cars on the requests list. I think im in the process of fulfilling that list to their wishes, although i have changed the name to 'luxury,' which i feel is less ambiguous. J. Thompson (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(I hate it when AfD nominators argue against every "keep" !vote so I apologise for doing it a second time here - though this is both a comment and a counter-point) The article Luxury vehicle pretty much concludes there is no definition (that's the counter-point). If, however, this nomination closes as "keep" I think the list should be linked to from there, and that article should be changed so that it does come up with some kind of defintion. My concern remains that such a definition would not be possible. Ros0709 (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you look at the history of that article and its talk page you'll see that it previously tried and failed to come up with some kind of definition. Ros0709 (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 08:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 08:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—If there is a well-defined selection criteria, this may work as a category. For example, the vehicles need to be specifically sold as a "luxury" car by their vendor and the price tag needs to be in the top quartile of all new vehicles sold in that model year.—RJH (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It appears there has been an attempt to create a definition of 'Luxury Car' for another article in the past. This appears to have failed and the difficulty in being able to define what would be included in this list means it will be open to opinion and disagreement. As such, I cannot see this list as meaningful and it should be deleted. Good idea for a try and make a list though - it's just something unworkable :) Evil Eye (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Luxury vehicle article itself has long been the cause of controversy because there is no clear definition of what constitutes a luxury car and any attempt to define it or to list examples is a futile exercise in POV and OR. Creating this list is like waving a red rag in front of every fan boy and car nut and will undoubtedly result in eternal edit wars over whether any particular Volvo/Audi/Nissan/etc is really a luxury car or merely a family car with leather seats. There is no universally accepted definition of what a luxury car is and according to Wikipedia's own policy on Original Research it is not our place to create one.Dino246 (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It does not cite any relevant reliable, independent sources, and there is no clear or objective definition of "luxury car". --Snigbrook ^(talk) 19:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Comment. Another idea: Why don't we either rename the article to 'List of Sports Cars' or 'List of Expensive Cars' or something similar, that would have less controversy. Either that, or we keep the article, and simply impose guidelines upon it, such as a minimum price, or top speed, or something like that. Theres no need to completely delete the article if the problem could be remedied by changing the name at the top, or including a better introduction paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jethrothompson (talk • contribs) 19:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC) Note: "keep" changed to "comment" as editor has already !voted. Ros0709 (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is already List_of_sports_car_manufacturers which then leads you to the models. Could you incorporate your list into that? Ros0709 (talk) 20:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JT, are you suggesting that by arbitrarily creating guidelines this arbitrary list would somehow become less arbitrary? Who decides at what price or speed a vehicle rises above the level of the Perodua Nippa and becomes a Ferrari Enzo? There may be little argument at the extremes but wait till someone's beloved BMW 120 is ruled out for being 3mph too slow and the references start flying that Top Gear magazine got it up to 131 while Autocar listed it at 126 and how can the Opel Tigra be a luxury car if this BMW isn't.. The list, however it is defined, is subjective, unencyclopedic, and can contribute nothing to Wikipedia but unnecessary arguments.Dino246 (talk) 20:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The list of sports car manufacturers is a list of manufacturers that only make 'sports cars'. This rules out, for example, Porsche or Bentley, which i am sure few people would argue against me calling these manufacturers 'luxurious.' This means that anybody searching for a list or catalogue of luxury or exotic vehicles may be able to use it as a starting point, but nothing else. It is a different list to the one that has been requested that i have made, and therefore you cannot compare the two. Also, i am not trying to encourage conflicts over what is and isn't a luxury car, i am simply putting forward a list of cars that many people would consider luxurious. Perhaps i didn't explain myself well enough in the previous comment. I also dont beleive we should define a set of guidelines for what is, and isn't luxurious. Either we go by a majority vote on one particular car/manufacturer that causes conflict, or we only put vehicles into the list that are identified by their producers/vendors/manufacturers as 'luxurious.' This list isn't attempting to define 'luxurious;' the word's nature means it is, and always will be, slightly ambiguous and indefinite, but the list or article is attempting to give a point of reference to find cars that people consider to be above standard levels of quality with regards to comfort or performance. J. Thompson (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a rather arbitrary classification. It is difficult to define "upper end of market" since automobile markets themselves are different among nations. There are no recognized standards to prevent a ballooning of this list because every automaker promote BS (Boastful Superlatives) about their products. Marketing superlatives and hyperbole such as "luxury" are encountered in almost every car. Moreover, automotive enthusiast magazines are quick to include superlatives such as "luxurious" within articles describing almost any automobile. However, Wikipedia is not to be a vehicle for promotion and advertising. This list only invites controversy because manufacturers, marketers, customers, and fans have an insatiable appetite for BS (Boastful Superlatives) — CZmarlin (talk) 22:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is very relative and can more accurately be displayed by the luxury cars category, it contains a lot of first world POV and could be very controversial. I would say that it should be deleted. —Atyndall ^{[citation needed]} 11:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The problem is that what should or should not appear is ultimately a matter of POV. One man's luxury car may be an ordinary car in another's view. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In the way the list is right now, it would be better off as a category. Tavix (talk) 19:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oobliette Sparks[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC, no references. Actuallybetter (talk) 21:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- forget it, nowhere near pasing WP:MUSIC in my opinion. Reyk _YO! 03:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 08:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BIO; non-notable person. She is only known for being in the band Tsunami Bomb, which itself is a somewhat unremarkable band. Jезка (talk) 11:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 23:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Member of an unremarkable band, turns up 0 google news results and little google results, I would say that being part of that band is not inherently notable and the person fails notability guidelines. —Atyndall ^{[citation needed]} 11:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus for deletion, default to keep. Sandstein 17:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Ayers election controversy[edit]

POV fork to get around WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT Scjessey (talk) 21:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is very obviously a coatrack-type of POV fork designed to evade the rules at WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT. A campaign-related event with very little publicity. What little media coverage it received was in the context of the poorly-conducted TV debate in which the matter was raised. I recommend that this article be deleted. Only the BLP of Bill Ayers links to this page. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly opposed. Thirty minutes after I mentioned at Talk:Barack Obama that "no one here has nominated [this article] for deletion, Scjessey raced over here and nominated it for deletion. A blatant, shameless attempt to influence a content dispute in another article. Very notable, impeccably sourced. Should be a GA nominee rather than an AfD nominee. WorkerBee74 (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is indeed a reaction to your mentioning it at Talk:Barack Obama. I had forgotten all about it, and realized this legacy WP:COAT page needed to be deleted. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~MERGE~~ into "Bill Ayers" and/or an article in The "Barack Obama" series. But don't support deletion if not to end up being merged. $\sim$ Justmeherenow ( ) 21:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC) Strike merger proposal (per Wikidemo's argument, below). $\sim$ Justmeherenow ( ) 22:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC) Don't delete WP's coverage of the 2008 Obama campaign's Ayers controversy in some form. It's a controversial (for various reasons) U.S. cultural/media touchstone; in fact, the now-also-famous (and likewise controversial) The New Yorker cover cartoon's flag-used-as-kindling motif is just about universally compared to this controversial shot of Ayers in the Chicago Magazine from 2001 when he was promoting his, um, controversial memoir. $\sim$ Justmeherenow ( ) 00:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not a POV fork; controversies that are substantial enough should get their own article, with examples being Hillary Rodham cattle futures controversy, George W. Bush military service controversy, Rudy Giuliani promotions of Bernard Kerik, John McCain lobbyist controversy, February 2008, and many more. Is Obama-Ayers substantial enough to warrant an article? It's not a no-brainer, but given that this material is too detailed to fit in either bio article without throwing off the weighting there, and that much of the 'action' occurs well before the presidential campaign, and thus doesn't really belong in the campaign article, I would say yes. The article title is poor, though, since Bill Ayers has not run in any election. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - As the creator of the article I will vouch that it was not created as a POV fork. First of all, the material is eminently notable per the published sources. It has kept attention for a number of months so far as an ongoing matter of nationwide interest. Among these 400+ news sources[1] most are about the connection between Ayers and Obama, and of those most are devoted to the controversy itself, not the biographical or historic details of the events. It is not a fork because there is not a second place where this was forked off of. It is the only place where this material is described. It was spun off the Bill Ayers article because, although well covered, it was not an appropriate part of Ayers' biography. That was done with consensus a few months ago at that article so that merge option should be taken off the table. Ayers' connection to Obama was incidental to Ayers' life. Likewise, it cannot reasonably be merged into the Obama or Obama campaign articles because of weight concerns - there is no consensus to include the material there, so that's not a legitimate outcome. Standing alone it is notable, but compared to the overall weight of the Presidential election or Obama's biography it is not. Weight is a concern applied within articles, not within the encyclopedia as a whole. Wikidemo (talk) 22:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I proposed the deletion, I am starting to come around to the idea of keeping it; however, it would need to be under a completely different title from the misleading one it is under right now. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no preference as to title and I agree that it's not a great one. I can't think of anything better right now though. Also, I'm not sticking up for the article quality. It tends to accumulate random stuff. But I do think the focus should be on the election controversy, because there's probably not enough substance under the controversy to actually cover the event. It's kind of like the Willie Horton thing, not notable for itself but notable as a campaign event. But obviously not nearly as prominent an issue as that. Wikidemo (talk) 22:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

..."Bill Ayers controversy"? "[Controversy surrounding.../] Bill Ayers' association with Barack Obama"? "Ayers-Obama association [/...controversy]"?

\sim

Justmeherenow ( ) 22:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Guilt by association smears against Barack Obama" as a title? Then we can add things like ACORN too (partially serious suggestion). -- Scjessey (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did start an article like that...it was a list article on the more general subject of partisan attacks and controversies in the election, involving all the candidates. But it was deleted. It's kind of funny, attack ads and other partisan political techniques are a pretty important factor in modern politics. Lots of sources, a big industry. But people get confused between writing about a partisan thing, and the article itself being partisan. So our coverage is spotty. Some things like Obama's supposedly being Muslim, survive in the main article. Others like swiftboating get an article, and yet others are opposed as being POV. It seems kind of haphazard. Wikidemo (talk) 01:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Ayers continues to be mentioned in connection with Obama. Newt Gingrich did it just yesterday. Many sources think the issue will be revived again in the fall. The article is an NPOV treatment of the issue of their relationship. What this article doesn't say is that multiple reliable sources have reported that Bill Ayers has been unrepentant about setting off bombs in U.S. government buildings in the 1970s, and for helping to organize the Days of Rage riot when he was a leader of the Weatherman group. Despite the reliable sourcing, and despite no reliable sourcing to the contrary, bias on the part of Wikipedia editors has kept that out of the article. Also not in the article (something I plan to change soon) is the fact that Michelle Obama organized two panel discussions on which both her husband and Bill Ayers participated. Obama also wrote a rave review for one of Ayers books. Readers who hear about the Obama-Ayers connection deserve to be able to find a good, neutral Wikipedia article on the subject. [self-redacting my criticism of an editor] If anyone wants links backing up anything I said, just ask me. Noroton (talk) 23:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at the moment neutral on this AfD, but wish to point out that (a) that "many sources think" this will be revisited in the Fall is hardly a reason to have an article now - if it were to be dismantled or deleted, it could always be reconstituted if indeed it became a major issue in the Fall (we can't see into the future); (b) Ayers' past is amply discussed in Bill Ayers which of course is wikilinked, so this article about an alleged current event should not go into those historic details - I don't see that as bias on the part of Wikipedia editors and think that comment here is unnecessarily provocative (and I have not edited that part of the article, so I'm not defending myself); (c) all the reviewers can do is look at the article as it now exists, not as you think it should be; (d) the assigning of motives to the nominator is out of place here. I remain neutral at the moment - but I do think the article should be re-named if it is kept. Tvoz/talk 07:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tvoz, (a) we disagree; (b) [self-redacting my criticism of an editor] The existence of this article makes it harder to cut back on the information presented in Wikipedia that might cast Barack Obama in a bad light. (c) No, it's perfectly acceptable to look at the subject as it might look rather than only at the article as it is, because that's one way to remove issues of article editing from fundamental issues related to article deletion; (d) [self-redacting my criticism of an editor] Noroton (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twenty-two hours to decide to redact your personal attack comments Noroton? Tvoz/talk 08:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the "complaints" have fallen, unsurprisingly, on deaf ears. It was a perfectly legitimate AFD based on my belief that this was a WP:COATRACK article - particularly with the misleading and provocative title. Please keep your comments to the matter at hand, rather than your personal dislike for my contributions. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget an April 20, 2002, hour-and-a-half panel discussion "Intellectuals in Times of Crisis," part of a seminar on the social role of public intellectuals (see here) featuring law instructor/politician Obama, memoirist Ayers, a columnist and other distinquished academics, at the University of Illinois-Chicago. As a Chomky fan, I'm sure these thinkers would have kept me on my seat's edge as well! .....& pps, a doctoral candidate at NYU I know----and who's working on a dissertaion on the history of anarchism BTW----is collaborating with another candidate who personally KNOWS AYERS QUITE WELL! But the only "gossip" I could pick up from my acquaintance was that Ayers just happened to have been neighbors with Obama and so they just ended up having the kind of associations that folks have when they're both associated with academia/politics. Darn! Oh well.)

\sim

Justmeherenow ( ) 00:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; use of the word "controversy" as an article or section title is prima facie evidence of NPOV violation Sceptre ^(talk) 23:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. See Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Scandal.2C_affair: "controversy" is preferred over "affair" and "scandal". Wasted Time R (talk) 00:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was startec by User:Wikidemo, who has been a supporter of Obama. I know, I know, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a good argument, but the fact is that Wikipedia practice is to have controversy articles, and they serve an NPOV purpose of providing more information on notable subjects. Another controversy article is Controversies about the word "niggardly" which is neither a fork, nor POV. We also have these articles in Wikipedia about controversies in this campaign (and it wouldn't hurt to look at Category:Barack Obama and Category:John McCain to get an idea of how Wikipedia is treating this important campaign): Jeremiah Wright controversy, John McCain lobbyist controversy, February 2008; and we have these controversy articles from the 2004 presidential campaigns: George W. Bush military service controversy, And we have this Category:George W. Bush administration controversies, John Kerry military service controversy, Category:2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities. And then, of course, there is Category:Controversies and Category:Political controversies and Category:United States Presidential controversies. So we have quite a tradition of covering controversies in Wikipedia and calling them "controversy". Noroton (talk) 02:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not forget MoveOn.org ad controversy. Noroton (talk) 02:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

or the recent The New Yorker#Controversial covers $\sim$ Justmeherenow ( ) 03:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Definitely could use a change of title, if kept. Bill Ayers has not been elected to anything. Bush v. Gore, now that was an "election controversy". Mandsford (talk) 00:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and per Sceptre. It seems to be a POV fork to me. --Chet B. Long^Talk/_ARK 01:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article is well-sourced, and serves well to keep the material in one place where it can be at least be watchlisted (as opposed to 10 different articles where people might attempt to soapbox.) Could perhaps use better title Yellow Rain (talk) 03:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. We've tried all the other options (such as various 'merges') and they didn't work. Read through all the Talk page discussions which show why we need this separate article. Flatterworld (talk) 04:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This belongs in the election article and is hardly enough of a "controversy" to merit its own article. Gamaliel (talk) 04:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable topic with extensive mainstream press coverage. Content clearly warrants an article (especially in light of the perennial gridlock on Barack Obama and daughter articles). Rather than blithly alluding to WP policy, the nom could cite specific instances? In my eyes, the article fulfills:

WP:SUMMARY: "it may become evident that subtopics or groups of subtopics can demonstrate their own notability and can be split off into their own article.
WP:CFORK: "Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork...Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not content forking, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary conform to Neutral Point of View."
WP:WELLKNOWN: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."
WP:NPOV: "he elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". ...Debates within topics are clearly described, represented and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular."

Title might need massaging, but otherwise throw this in on a watchlist, category, or navbox with all the other 2008 controversies and keep an eye on it. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a notable controversy. POV issues are not a reason for deletion, only for editing. The AfD page is not a good place to bring debates over article content. RayAYang (talk) 05:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Bill Ayers election controversy article is a WP:POVFORK created to violate WP:BLP.

For example, the first paragraph of its Interactions between Obama and Ayers section is based on a three-year-old blog entry by anti-Obama blogger "red rabbit" (based on her recollection of an event a decade earlier) -- violating WP:BLP which states that: "blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person" and that: "This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages."

The editorial boards of both major Chicago newspapers concur:

editorial (March 3, 2008). Clearing up another empty shot at Obama. Chicago Sun-Times, p. 27:
Time to move on to Phony Flap 6,537,204.
editorial (April 18, 2008). Guilt by association. Chicago Tribune, p. 20:
Now how about getting back to the real campaign?

Newross (talk) 05:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those appear to be excellent examples of content that should be included in the article to ensure its NPOV. They are not justifications for deletion. Madcoverboy (talk) 05:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Indeed, the fact that this controversy has been the subject of editorials by major newspapers would seem to prove the notability of the topic. Per Newross's concerns, fix the refs to ensure compliance with WP:BLP, but otherwise, use the talk page, not AfD to resolve content disputes. Madcoverboy (talk) 05:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Doesn't look like the AfD is going to succeed anyway, but the article seems like slightly too much soapbox vs. encyclopedic content. OTOH, merging hugely disproportionate material into the various proposed candidates would be far worse than just keeping this one. LotLE×talk 06:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 08:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this article hasn't already, it has the serious potential to turn into a WP:SOAPBOX, WP:COATRACK, and have Guilt By Association problems. If it is decided to keep it, then it should be strictly monitored to keep it WP:NPOV as those who are "crusading for truth" and adding any and every minor criticism of Barack Obama to show the readers the "truth", will continue to try to twist this into a negative POV/WP:OR attack on Obama. Brothejr (talk) 10:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That's like saying we should delete the capital punishment and evolution articles because they have potential to turn into soapboxes. NuclearWarfare (talk) 12:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As is the current situation with the equally substantial McCain-Hagee controversey and lots of other similar examples, the matter merits a mention on Bill Ayres' article and no more.--The Bruce (talk) 13:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The matter of Obama's past association with Ayers has been a campaign issue and is likely to continue to be, if only as background rumblings. I may personally think that it's a prime example of a guilt-by-association smear, but it's a guilt-by-association smear that has been covered in reliable sources and as such deserves to be given encyclopedic treatment. I suggest that active editors review WP:BLP#Criticism and praise, in particular the bits about balance and structure; the article could perhaps be reorganized to give more weight to the views of experts familiar with the Ayerses in Chicago. But that's not an argument for deletion. (Incidentally, I agree that the current title is awful and should be changed.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 13:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . CENSEI (talk) 14:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some kind of reason would be nice, CENSEI. Please see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong deleteIt is clearly a WP:COATRACK article. Please stop analysing the nominator and the reasons why it might have been nominated. Docku (talk) 15:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled by the people who think this is a coatrack article. That's when an article purports to be about topic A, but instead is a vehicle for topic B. Here, the article purports to be about the controversy concerning Obama's relationship with Ayers, and it is. You want to see some real coatrack articles, look at Larry Kuca or Stephen Smith (Whitewater) – biographical content of articles minimal, mentions of Whitewater and Clinton pardons maximal. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and I say that as a Democrat and an Obama supporter. I think the title is somewhat contentious, but at the moment, I come to the strange conclusion that this is a reasonably balanced article, though it can stand some cleanup. The "controversy" seems pretty silly, once it's explained. Obama was on the board of the directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago, which seems to have gotten an article for no other reason than to support this article. Professor Bill Ayers, who, back in the 60s and 70s, before he was a professor, was part of the Weather Underground group, served on the board during some of the yars that Obama served on the board. It's harder to make the "guilt by association" argument on Bill Ayers than it is on Jeremiah Wright; trying to explain this one is like trying to explain the BCCI bank scandal of the 1990s. Why keep an article on Wikipedia? Not because they will stumble across it as a featured article on the main page, but because "Bill Ayers" will be mentioned by someone-- Stephanopoulos, Limbaugh, perhaps one of the moderators of an Obama-McCain or McCain-Obama debate, and people will turn to Wikipedia to find out what's up with this; a sourced article provides the information needed to understand the background. Mandsford (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep Curious people will want to know about this. What I get after reading this article? There's a lot of hype over nothing. Carefully documenting all the accusations, we find -- nothing. So it's not like this is an attack page on Obama; it has exactly the opposite effect. II | (t - c) 22:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well-sourced; I can't see any reason for deletion. In particular I don't see how this is a POV fork; as Mandsford mentioned this is a reasonably balanced article, and what exactly is this a fork of? The Bill Ayers article has very little in common with this article, and this subject certainly could use its own article because including all this well-sourced information in either Obama's or Ayer's articles would be ridiculous. --Samuel Tan 13:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the main concerns I had when nominating this were driven by the title of the article, and some of the section headers. Not only is Bill Ayers not up for any kind of election, but there isn't actually anything controversial about the relationship he had with Obama (or lack thereof). The only controversial matter I can identify is the huge uproar over the conduct of the moderators of the ABC debate in which the matter of the relationship was raised. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Bill Ayers election controversy#Retitle.3F. Everyone wants a better title, but no one has thought of one (yet). If you can think of one, please suggest it. Flatterworld (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or see the similar discussion at "John McCain lobbyist controversy." The first words on its talk page are,

Article name
Just to throw this out here, is this article properly named? So far the controversy has involved McCain and The New York Times. Not to mention the whole NPOV issue with the title.. Perhaps something like The New York Times' John McCain lobbyist article would be better? (But then, that seems a bit long to me)--Bobblehead (rants) 19:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

----but after awhile it just peters out. Presumably 'cause nobody proposed a demonstably better one?

\sim

Justmeherenow ( ) 16:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our job is not to exclude baseless, manufactured controversies but to exclude non-notable controversies.Bdell555 (talk) 10:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A controversy is notable if it has been covered in reliable sources. This one has been covered in spades. Our personal politics and attitudes about whether this is a "manufactured" controversy are irrelevant. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Tempest in a teacup. Title is misleading. Any content worth saving can go into the Bill Ayers article or into the Obama campaign article. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 15:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On further consideration, I'm leaning towards keep but rename. Perhaps something like Obama-Ayers association controversy. The current title makes it sound like Ayers is running for election, which is a falsehood. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 14:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probable Keep (is that allowed?) per concluding argument of User:Mandsford. But I think the name could be improved upon. Cgingold (talk) 23:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For the new title, let's try "Obama/Ayers controversy." Curious bystander (talk) 23:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep It is well-sourced, neutral information that cannot reasonably fit in the main articles on Ayers, Obama, or Obama's campaign. Thus it makes sense as a separate article. There's no BLP problem here since the material is neutral and it doesn't reflect any Ayers any more negatively than the main article on the man (note that even if that were the case it would be a cause for concern but wouldn't necessarily be a BLP problem either). JoshuaZ (talk) 03:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obama's running for President, and everything about him that gives a clue to his past, present, or future is notable. His association with Bill Ayers certainly gives such clues. I think this issue is important enough to not be merged with other articles on Obama. Vegasprof (talk) 13:22, 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 --JForget 01:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stereotype inevitability[edit]

This page is a soapy personal essay and, despite having a long list of references, combined it reads like a high school project. Merge relevent content with Stereotype and delete the page. _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 21:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This seems to be lifted from somewhere else; compare the two Mandsford (talk) 00:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rather, I suspect that page lifted it from WP. Otherwise, why would it include the merge tags at the top? justinfr (talk) 02:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge in an ideal wikiworld but I see the request for sources on the Talk Page is over 3 months old. Delete Per more thorough check of article alongside source provided by Mandsford. Plutonium27 (talk) 02:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Plutonium27 (talk)[reply]
Delete This article is definitely WP:OR, WP:SOAP, WP:ESSAY and WP:COPYVIO. Mandsford is right and I think it is WP:COPYVIO. --Grrrlriot (♠ ♣ ♦ ♥ †) 02:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a school paper, not an encyclopedia article. JuJube (talk) 04:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 08:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An essay of original research. Jезка (talk) 11:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - but note that parts of this seem to be better referenced and better written than the current section Stereotype#Psychology, and perhaps ought to be merged there. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge then delete. I'm pretty familiar with the psychology stereotyping literature, but haven't heard of 'stereotype inevitability' as a unique term. The article is well-referenced, however, from peer-reviewed journals and it would be a shame to lose the info. Whatever isn't included in the article Stereotypes should be moved there. I'll try to work on that shortly. justinfr (talk) 02:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This 2 year old article is too uncohesive for my admittedly subjecive taste. I couldn't fully comprehend the author's points. Artene50 (talk) 09:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Officio Assassinorum[edit]

AfDs for this article:

No assertion of real-world notability. Reliance solely on primary sources regurgitates plot summary ; does not offer, and a search of google and other databases does not yield, any information on critical reception, concept's development, etc. A summary of this concept is already present in another larger umbrella article. seresin ( ¡? ) 21:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the myriad reasons presented in previous discussion, i.e. articles asserts notability for a real-world audience and has merely sumountable, i.e. fixable issues. If a summary exists elsewhere, then we would redirect to that summary at worst. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the first AfD was voided by the closing admin on request because the nominator was ~~banned~~ blocked as a sock (basically a recreated account in order to avoid an indef block). the article has not changed in between. Criticism raised in the first AfD is just as valid today. This article still uses only source material produced by Games Workshop (White Dwarf (magazine), the codexes and the fiction are all published by games workshop). The article covers a fictional agency of a faction in a miniatures game--this faction is mentioned in the codexes but otherwise is not an element of the game (one may play as the imperium without knowing who they are). None of the sources support notability outside this fictional universe and no secondary sources exist to assert notability per WP:GNG. As an editorial manner, the article needs to be rewritten to satisfy WP:WAF. Protonk (talk) 05:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Basically, what Protonk said, only replacing "faction" with "subfaction." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and delete as there are no sources independent of Games Workshop (and it's officially licensed subsidiaries, publishers, etc) to demonstrate notability. --Craw-daddy | T | 08:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Imperium (Warhammer 40,000) - a cut down list of the temples ought to be there at least. the wub "?!" 08:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 08:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Excessively reliant on primary sources, real-world notability is nonexistent. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely agree with nom and Protonk's excellent, well-reasoned argument. I have nothing to add beyond the numerous issues they have already stated. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JNN and WP:PERNOM are unsufficient reason for deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet PERNOM makes a suitable keep statement? Why the double standard? Pagra shtak 19:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Deleting is a far more serious matter as it can undo hours of volunteer work and potentially insult those who did that work. I hope that anyone who supports per me also elaborates on their reasons as well, but it would be impolite to say that as a reply to them. I try to only make these posts to those who never argue to keep; those who I see as balanced or who provide hard to argue with reasons for deletion, are much less likely to ge a reply pointing them to an essay or policy. But those who just go down the list of AfDs saying "per nom" or "nnotable" delete in rapid fire fashion should be addressed. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Because evidently taking the time to nominate inappropriate articles for AfD is a process which requires zero effort on behalf of the editors involved, and therefore nobody will be insulted when someone works his or her way through the whole front page of AfD copy-pasting Keep comments. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have no qualms about nominating inappropriate articles, but articles that can be merged and redirected are not inappropriate and you don't find copy-and paste delete "arguments" insulting? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No: as an adult, I got over having my own contributions removed rather quickly. In many cases an article is evidently irredeemable without much thought (have a look at some of WikiProject Football's non-notable AfDs to see how easy it can be), as is the case here. People who disagree tend to be the kind of people who disagree with article deletion altogether, which is a valid viewpoint but not one which (thankfully) has much weight on current debates. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Then editors, as adults, should not feel insulted when others argue to keep articles they want deleted. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You seem to have replied to something other than the comment immediately above you. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The standard response to your work argument is located at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#People put a lot of work into it. --Allen3 ^talk 20:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that the independent third-party sources needed for creation of a neutral and verifiable article exist. --Allen3 ^talk 20:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability through non-trivial coverage from reliable sources independent of the topic. Fails WP:NOT#PLOT as well. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 19:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article contains no reliable secondary sources, and I have seen no evidence of such. Without reliable secondary sources as required by Wikipedia:Notability, we simply do not have the materials to create an article that satisfies Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability. The argument holds, whether spoken by a block evader or established editor. Pagra shtak 20:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No third party source coverage. Relys mainly on first part. Undeath (talk) 03:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks citations to multiple third-party sources offering significant coverage, i.e. fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:FICT. Content is entirely in-universe plot summary, failing to offer an encyclopedic treatment (WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:WAF). --EEMIV (talk) 02:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all in-universe articles regarding Warhammer 40,000 - This includes all articles other than the main article dedicated to the game. --Agamemnon2 (talk) 19:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note Wikipedia:ALLORNOTHING. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agamemnon2's comment has nothing to do with WP:ALLORNOTHING. If he'd said, "If we delete this we must delete all others" or "we deleted X so this should go, too" then the "if X then Y" thinking of all-or-nothing would apply. However, the comment "in-universe Warhammer articles should be deleted" is outside the blanket. --EEMIV (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree, WP:ALLORNOTHING has no bearing. Saying all in-universe articles without secondary sources should be deleted isn't asserting that the y all have to go if this one does, it is saying they all should go for the same reasons as this one.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Yobmod (talk • contribs)
Delete Reliable secondary sources seem not to exist to exert enough notability for a seperate article. Is entirely in-universe with primary sources. this should be in a specialist Warhammer wikia, not here.Yobmod (talk) 11:53, 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 . lifebaka (talk - contribs) 17:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Programming video games for the evil genius[edit]

Fails WP:BK. Prod declined, but declining editor did not discuss, nor provide any links to reliable independent reviews. My own research found nothing on Lexis or Google News. There are quite a few web hits on Google, but I had difficulty finding anything beyond blurb-length reviews in independent sources. Furthermore, article is written like an advertisement. RayAYang (talk) 20:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 08:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unable to find any significant coverage beyond the usual online bookshop blurbs attached to any catalog entry. -- Whpq (talk) 12:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BK. Two hundred independant google hits, but almost all of them link to shops. --Amalthea (talk) 15:11, 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 per WP:RS and WP:OR. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UEFA Euro 2008 rankings[edit]

Pure original research and invention. UEFA do not use a league system to determine positions, and neither should we. Croatia did not come 3rd in the competition in question. Article's talk page is clear about its lack of value. Kevin McE (talk) 20:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 08:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. --Amalthea (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this doesn't make any sense. Euro 2008 wasn't a league, it was a knock out where there was no official third or fourth. Buc (talk) 15:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 16:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So this proves that the office Euro Cup draw compo still owes me £5 on Russia. Plutonium27 (talk) 01:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Punkmorten (talk) 10:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g12 copyvio, g11 promotional. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BIO Gwendolyn Lindsay-Jackson, Esq[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article creator has already userfied this by posting the same information at User:Tvlegalnews. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 08:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as copyright infringement of [2]. I tagged it as such. --Amalthea (talk) 14:30, 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 both per WP:ATHLETE. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Faulkner (cricketer)[edit]

Non notable. WP:CRIC convention is that in the absence of other notability, playing at U-19 international level is insufficient to pass WP:ATHLETE. Dweller (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NB I'm not sure how to add Jeremy Smith (cricketer) to this nom and I'm feeling a bit sub-par. I'd appreciate it if someone would, or I'll do it myself when I'm next online. --Dweller (talk) 20:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 08:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does not meet WP:ATHLETE or the general notability criterion let alone WP:CRIC notability guidelines. If he is any good, Tasmania will give him a game this season and he can be included. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons already given. Andrew nixon (talk) 09:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 05:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bothI had started these pages when the received their rookie contracts on the assumption that they would soon be playing first class cricket, but obviously it is more prudent to wait until after the event. I will be happy to redo them once (and if) they make their debuts...

No opposition to deletion. Robert Fleming (talk) 12:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete . Users arguing for keep made WP:ATA arguments and those arguing for merge and redirect did not support their position. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 17:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bournemouth university boat club[edit]

The article is about a non-notable school rowing club that appears to have no history of significant achievement and no great presence in the realm of British riparian athletics. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page is actually about an up-and-coming university rowing club within the UK - it deserves to be on here just as much as any other uk university rowing club. (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2008 _{preceding comment added by Jamiel46}
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 19:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 19:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As Jamiel46 says, the club is "up and coming". When it has arrived it will have a place on Wikipedia. Until such time it fails WP:ORG. Sorry. nancy ^(talk) 20:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to the article, the club was founded in 1993. Fifteen years is a bit much for an "up-and-coming" club, yes? Ecoleetage (talk) 21:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment Normally we quickly delete individual college clubs of various sorts, but this one seems to essentially be the B.U. rowing team, and corresponding to a university sports team in the US sense. So I'm not sure what criteria apply. I removed a speedy A8 it without prejudice one way or another, to see what people thought. No opinion myself on the merits. DGG (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (1) This is a University club, not a "school". (2) If deleted then ALL College American Football team article should also be deleted. I am fed up with finding university clubs and societies nomimated for AFD. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vandal alert Please note that an IP vandal attempted to delink this article from the AfD queue. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What's notable about a university club? Unless someone can show they are somehow above average or notable for some reason, I don't see how this can be kept. Peterkingiron's suggestion of deleting all College American Football team articles (except those that have some notability, of course) is excellent, but putting in that many AfD tags will be a heck of a lot of work... :-) Oh and by the way, together with three friends at the University of Bordeaux here we just founded a darts club, can we have our own article now, please? --Crusio (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Bournemouth University Plutonium27 (talk) 02:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 02:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Bournemouth University - the page fails WP:ORG lacking reliable secondary sources and cannot survive in its present form. TerriersFan (talk) 03:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete club makes no claim of notability. Do not redirect, do not merge; no reliable sources. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:06, 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 speedy delete. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 22:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Bernardi[edit]

No sources, not notable per WP:BIO. Google search turns up no news, and no hits except for his official and social networking sites, and this article. Kelly ^hi! 19:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Despite the length of this article, I couldn't find any assertion of notability. Pburka (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7. Townlake (talk) 20:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A7, non-notable. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 21:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So tagged. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 22:49, 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. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shiraz Corp.[edit]

Another hoax company article. Badly written and spelled and improbable sounding; there just might have been some truth in it, but a few checks show that there isn't.The founder, Dana Shiraz, is said to be worth $13.2 bn, but is not in the Forbes list, and searching Forbes for her produces no result. A Google search for Shiraz Corp produces only a surgical supplies business in Scottsdale, AZ. Author Mihad (talk · contribs) has no edits but this article, apart from two in February and an attempt today to insert "Dana Shiraz" into List of the 100 wealthiest people. Delete as hoax. JohnCD (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The improbability of this being legitimate seems insurmountable. Jclemens (talk) 19:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads more like a math problem than a real article. If Dana Shiraz inherits $6 million from her father and invests 16% of that in diamond exploration, how much does she have left in her savings account? Pburka (talk) 19:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Looks like a hoax. A google search on "Dana Shiraz" and "Shiraz Corp." turns up only this page. Hobit (talk) 22:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weather Forecast for Aleksey Vayner 's new girlfriend. Plutonium27 (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC) Comment: Investigation of Enterainment maganzines show no apearing or payement for Screan 1,2 or 3. Article tb murderd or bankcrupt already...Plutonium27 (talk) 03:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A7 speedy delete as a clear case of a WP:HOAX Artene50 (talk) 09:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Illiterate and fake. Nwhyte (talk) 15:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of basketball nicknames[edit]

I think the content of this list is very unencylopedic. All the nicknames are unsourced and could potentially violate WP:OR. —Chris! _ct 18:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrew Nomination I think there is really no point continuing this discussion. The consensus seems to go toward keep rather than delete.—Chris! _ct 19:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It could be rearranged to make it look more encylopedic. And since nicknames were removed from Template:Infobox NBA Player, I think this article should be kept. If it's going to be deleted, the nickname parameter should be re-added to Template:Infobox NBA Player. ● 8 ~Hype ^@ 19:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main concern here is references. If those nicknames are well sourced, I am ok with it. But if they are not, it is a problem because it violates our policies.—Chris! _ct 21:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've cited every nickname listed in the NBA Encyclopedia. However, there's still a lot to go -- the last encyclopedia was published in 2000, and this article suffers from some extreme recentism. Zagalejo^^^ 03:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 19:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 19:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It is possible to write a sourced list of basketball nicknames. The Official NBA Encyclopedia and the old Sporting News player registers include nicknames with many player entries. However, articles like this attract a lot of troublemakers, and I'm not sure if it's really worth the effort. Zagalejo^^^ 20:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm Neutral on the article, but if the only problem is sourcing, it should be easy to fix most of it. Most NBA player profiles include nicknames, as well do some coach/team/arena profiles. The "Only first name" bit would be hard to source, and should probably be removed. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 23:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Zag that sourcing this would be a simple matter, based on the numerous player registers that include nickname information. However, this can and should be trimmed down, with no more than one nickname per player. Some of these, like "Oh My Bosh!!" and "Run of the Millsap" are ESPN's Chris Berman musings that have no staying power. Mandsford (talk) 00:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but two things: 1. the list should be alpha by player name, not nickname, and 2. lots and lots of references. I am sure many of these can be referenced, but I also worry about one-time usage names that some reporter made up to cutesify a story, or some self-reference the player gave in an interview one time. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Honestly, it makes no difference whether the article is alphabetized by player name or by nickname. If the list is kept, I wouldn't rearrange it. Mandsford (talk) 12:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite per above. List of nicknames used in cricket is a reasonably good example of how this can be done (though that list needs considerable amounts of citation too). Perhaps a rename of one or the other of these two articles for consistency would be a good idea, too. Grutness...wha? 01:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I rename this article.—Chris! _ct 02:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would also throw in: the list as it stands is really not a "List of basketball nicknames", but "List of NBA nicknames". Be prepared for the addition of international players who do not play in the NBA, and I would also think about what will happen with college players. Maybe restrict inclusion to players who already have an article, and clearly state as such????? LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:N and WP:RS. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excelloz[edit]

Lack of notability as a company or significance as a website. Toddst1 (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This AfD is a textbook example of what happens when one contests a speedy deletion on the grounds of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. What we have here is a non-notable website that simply fell through the cracks and was finally pointed to us by one of its competitors who tried his luck and lost. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 18:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 19:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete - no coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 12:58, 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.

E.B. Hughes[edit]

The result was Delete as vanity spam per opinions below. Guy (Help!) 18:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Writer and film director of dubious notability. Excluding an IMDb profile and such, the only decent source I can find for this guy is an interview in relation to one of his films ([3]), and I'm not sure if this constitutes a sufficient claim of notability. In addition, the name of the author (User:Ebfilms) strongly suggests a serious WP:COI issue, and in fact the same user has created this article before, which was deleted here at AfD in November '06, and it's been prodded twice since then as well. If the outcome of this discussion is delete, can we please sprinkle it with some salt to prevent further recreation? PC78 (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:BIO Toddst1 (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ delete per WP:SD#G4; tagged accordingly. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Struck out "speedy" due to ((db-repost)) being declined; see Nancy's comment below. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - does not show any notability, fails WP:BIO. --triwbe (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO. For the record I just declined the G4 speedy on this article as it as some significant additions compared to when it was last at AFD & so G4 does not apply (not that anyone could have known that without seeing the deleted revisions) - best now to let this current AFD run its course & then salt once it has finally been deleted. nancy ^(talk) 19:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wholly unnotable. seicer | talk | contribs 17:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - body of work doesn't justify any indication of notability at this point, from what I can see. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:42, 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 Redirect (non admin closure). Only significant contributer redirected as per nom. Amalthea (talk) 12:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is Twice Now[edit]

Recent music isn't my strong suit, but is there any reason to have an article about this song even once now? Clarityfiend (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would nominator please clarify their reason(s) for listing this as per deletion criteria? Also, the article page has no template for this AfD (I've not rectified that: will do if/when this AfD nom gets a stated reason). Thanks Plutonium27 (talk) 02:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have left a message for nom User:Clarityfiend on his/her talkpage Plutonium27 (talk) 02:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Close please. The article's creator has redirected the song to its album. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:19, 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 per WP:ATHLETE. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Archibald-Henville[edit]

Previously WP:PRODded, now recreated; non-notable footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE (no first team appearances in a fully professional league). Angelo (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Angelo. Chafford (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 18:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 16:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. For now! I hope he does get some games know. :) Govvy (talk) 22:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Recreate if and when he makes an appearance in a fully-pro competition. --Jimbo^[online] 12:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Also fails WP:FOOTYN. -- Alexf⁴² 14:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: concur with everyone else - recreate this article if and when he makes his competitive first team debut. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 15:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:BK. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paiker-re-Jamil (Serat un Nabi PBUH)[edit]

Unsourced article and no evidence of notability. This is a book *review* so constitues original reserach and is compromised by peacock terms and excessive praise. Ros0709 (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Mr. Hameed Shahid deserve our gratitude for his work." Pure spam, no evidence of any notability. --Crusio (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have reason to believe that the creator of this article, User:Istaara is none other than Hameed Shahid, see discussion here. --Crusio (talk) 22:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 22:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BK. And oh my, after checking the various book articles linked at Hameed Shahid, in combination with a strong suspicion of COI (see thread mentioned above), I'd say a very big group nomination would be in order. See also WP:Articles for deletion/Mitti Aadam Khati Hai. --Amalthea (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not noteworthy. Stephenjh (talk) 23:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:BIO. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doron Veltzer[edit]

The article was PRODded in the past by me, and the tag was removed. Seems to be about a completely non-notable artist, and the article was partially written by that artist himself. The sources posted do not appear to exist, and if they do, they are extremely obscure (I checked both in Hebrew and English). In fact, the sources' authors don't appear to exist either. No other reliable secondary sources could be found. Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. No assertion of notability. Pburka (talk) 19:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NN. Got in some language practice with a search in Hebrew and nope, I couldn't find anything at all either. Plutonium27 (talk) 04:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Shuki (talk) 22:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Promotion article. -- Nudve (talk) 05:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted as advertising by User:JzG. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once A Champion[edit]

Unreferenced film does not show any notability triwbe (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also nominate the following pages for the same reason:

--triwbe (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NF... --Cameron * 17:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse later additions. The upcoming ones can be recreated nearer to the time (if notable). (Also WP:CRYSTAL). --Cameron * 17:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, except perhaps Harsh Light. Harsh Light (which appears to be a 2001 film, not 1997) gets some coverage on filmthreat.com ([4], [5]); it also claims to be "award winning", though I was unable to find a source to back this up. As for the rest, I've googled each title along with the director's name, and in each case there are minimal hits which are all just IMDb, MySpace, and such. No reliable third-party sources that would support a claim of notability. In addition, all of these article have been written by the director himself (or someone associated with him), and even assuming good faith that User:Ebfilms is simply unaware of WP:COI, this does appear to be rather shameless self-promotion. PC78 (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, nonnotable and self-promotional. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:55, 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 per WP:SPAM and WP:N. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lamhon Ka Lams (Nasmain)[edit]

Speedy tag removed by an anon ip w/o explanation. This is pure spam, containing phrases such as "Study the Nasmein of Hameed Shahid, and dive deep in order to acquaint your self with the beauty of thought concealed in words" and publicity material such as "I was enthralled both by the language and content of the composed material". Ros0709 (talk) 17:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spam without any notability indicated. --Crusio (talk) 17:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Stylistically-challenged WP:SPAM paen to WP:NN book. Plutonium27 (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poorly written self-promotion that should have been speedied. Edward321 (talk) 23:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge/Redirect to Yorktown High School (Virginia) (non-admin closure). Content can be merged from redirect article's history by anyone so inclined. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yorktown High School Theatre[edit]

A page about Yorktown High School (Virginia)'s theatre department. Has no references and doesn't seem to assert any notability outside the school itself and the local school district. Perhaps a few pieces could be merged, but little about the department is even mentioned on the school's page, nor is it linked. Fails Wikipedia:Notability Jh12 (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Yorktown High School (Virginia). --brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Yorktown High School (Virginia). This should be a no-brainer option when a parent article exists that is the ideal repository for this information. The time and effort wasted at AfD would be far more productively used to propose a merge or just go ahead and do it. Alansohn (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about proposing a merge, but there isn't a lot of content in the page that I would want in a high school article. If I saw the information on teachers, faculty, class listings, and recent local awards in a school article, I would immediately delete it or tag it for removal.--Jh12 (talk) 20:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, tagging an obvious-merge article for a merge rarely results in a merge consensus. You have the creator of the article who is against the merge versus the one merge proponent. Nobody else chimes in because the article doesn't get any visitors (nobody really cares enough about some highschool theatre company). Although I'm not suggesting playing around with Wikipedia policy, unfortunately, tagging an article for an afd is the best way to gain a merge consensus. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Yorktown High School (Virginia). Ditto on "no brainer" comment. -- Quartermaster (talk) 20:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Redirect - only a small percentage of this information belongs on the school's page. While I am sure there are millions of reliable sources from the local papers to support having this article, it simply does not belong. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 02:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Yorktown High School (Virginia). TerriersFan (talk) 02:57, 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 per WP:BK and WP:OR. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mitti Aadam Khati Hai[edit]

PROD and PROD2 contested by anon IP without explanation. The article is a book *review* and is thus WP:OR. Ros0709 (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. (I was the prod2, by the way) --Crusio (talk) 16:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BK. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paiker-re-Jamil (Serat un Nabi PBUH). --Amalthea (talk) 19:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The author of the subject and article thinking it's really keen is not an indication of notability. Edward321 (talk) 00:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Someone's OR opinion of a non-notable book. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Punkmorten (talk) 22:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transport in Jamaica[edit]

Unencyclopedic; simply a list of facts which violates WP:IINFO –Dream out loud (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - This is an important article, just not correctly done. You should ask someone who knows a lot about Jamaica to expand the article. --Meldshal (§peak to me) 16:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Easily expanded and improved, as an editor with a background in creating and improving transport articles should have recognized. I just expanded it myself using the main Jamaica article, and it probaly took less time than to file an AFD! I'm very disappointed he didn't even try to improve the article, or at least tag it appropriately, and try to bring it to the attention of others who might be able to improve it. AFDs are not intend for those purposes. - BillCJ (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Transport on an island of over 2 and half million people is encyclopedic. As it stands now, it's much more than a "list" but a written description of this important topic. --Oakshade (talk) 19:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -- This is as yet a somewhat poor article, but that is a reason to tag it for improvement, not to delete it. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has been substantially improved since the nomination. Transport in a country of any significant size can easily provide the material to make an encyclopedic article. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep First, dozens of similar articles exist, so it's not a violation of WP:IINFO. Second, just because an article is in poor condition doesn't mean you should delete it. Consider asking someone at a related WikiProject (WP:HWY, etc). Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 21:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted. _GB^T/C 16:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

7Strategy[edit]

Blatant advertising for company, suggest block on user also as it is only used for promotional purposes Chafford (talk) 15:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - has been CSD#A7 once and should be again unless WP:N is shown in more WP:RS. --triwbe (talk) 16:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Salt - has been deleted before under CSD A7, article appears unchanged from provious deletion. Also, username of creator is User:7Strategy, which to me seems like a possible promotional/spam account. - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - should be speedied. Deb (talk) 16:15, 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 Speedy delete ~~a7, it's a Swedish 13 year old writing about himself. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Actually deleted as G3 for intentional disruption based on the user's indefinite block, but same end result. —C.Fred (talk) 16:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abdikarin[edit]

Foreign language, possible turkish. Chafford (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further research required. Not English. Use of a date in 1995 makes me wonder if this is a nn bio? Somebody with language familiarity needs to assist us in assessing the article. —C.Fred (talk) 15:56, 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 per WP:BIO. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jake McCollough[edit]

The subject of this article has only appeared in one film, with a likely small role. StaticGull Talk 15:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, his role in the film was a rather large one as the child John Bates... i should know... he's my cousin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrmccollough (talk • contribs) 15:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one role is NOT notable, you seem to have a nasty habbit of creating unsuitable articles. Chafford (talk) 15:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Mrmccollough:

That poses a conflict of interests too, then. StaticGull Talk 16:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N outright, even interpreting in the most positive light. Jclemens (talk) 19:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Certainly fails WP:N. He's just not notable at present. Maybe in a few years time but not now. Artene50 (talk) 09:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While one role could be notable, playing a child in a redlinked film is not a notable role. Edward321 (talk) 00:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete other than Mrmccollough, who cares. JuJube (talk) 18:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted. the wub "?!" 20:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tin henchman[edit]

Nonsense, Non notable, and is being used to host spam links. Chafford (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnotable, spam, and not encyclopedic. StaticGull Talk 15:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, and so tagged. Utter nonsense. PC78 (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as vandalism (besides, the subject is covered in Mpemba effect). ... discospinster _talk 17:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mepmba[edit]

Nonsense page Chafford (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close. Merging this AfD nomination with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart little 4. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart little 4[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Chafford (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However since this film IS in the works, as more information becomes available it shall be added Mrmccollough (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence to suggest that it is in the works. Google shows nothing. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Until more information becomes available, the article should not exist. StaticGull Talk 16:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL; no verifiable information about this project. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There is redundancy between this AfD and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart little 4. We need to fix this. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep, nominated by banned user. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow party (sexuality)[edit]

Utter nonsense, barely notable at all, fails WP:NOT#NEWS. Memeticorganelle (talk) 13:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC) — Memeticorganelle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete The book might be notable but whatever this article is supposed to be about (very hard to tell, an Oprah episode?!!) seems OR. My only other suggestion is to rename the article and make it about the book only, seen as it has coverage in the NYTimes and USA today. --neon white talk 17:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep media hoaxes that generate a book and an NYT rebuttal to that book have themselves achieved notability. Jclemens (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The book is a work of fiction that has no known connection to the subject of the article. --neon white talk 20:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite as an article about the book The book"Ruditis, Paul. Rainbow Party. New York, NY: Simon Pulse, 2005. (a division of Simon & Schuster) ISBN 9781416902355 - got enough comment to be worth an article, and, fwiw, is in 155 worldCat libraries The "event" is a presumably(?) fictional setting in the book, and shouldn't be the focus of the article. Note that there are 3 earlier books & a video program by the same title [6], all intended for primary school children, and apparently on more conventional themes. DGG (talk) 21:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the hoax itself is a quintessential morality panic, among the most notable ones. --Alynna (talk) 01:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator is a sock of Grawp. Protonk (talk) 15:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The alleged phenomenon is addressed at length in an article in The New York Times, covering a book on the subject. The reliable and verifiable sources provided satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 17:05, 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 as no-one could actually provide evidence that he meets WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dilyan Iliev[edit]

No claim to notability is asserted. Footballers, to be worthy of an article, need to have played professionally, yet this article makes no claim that the player has done so. slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 13:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It pains me, but ~~weak keep~~ per WP:ATHLETE criterion 1. It seems that his club, PFC_Levski_Sofia is fully professional (at least belongs to Bulgarian A Professional Football Group). How this article will ever have real sources eludes me at the moment. --Storkk (talk) 14:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking out, until I understand what "on trial with" means in the context of professional soccer (is he a paid member of the team?). --Storkk (talk) 14:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please speak up, anyone, you disagree with this... "On-trial" is more or less the footballing term for an audition. I've never heard of one lasting longer than a month. In any case, he's not a member of the team until he signs a more permanent contract. slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 16:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Partially quoting from a comment made at WT:FOOTY (because I can't think of a better way to explain it myself): "a trial is an invitation to train with a club for test purposes, to see if the manager thinks they are a worthwhile purchase. They can extend for as long as the manager (presuming the manager is the one who makes the trial offer) wants it to, but rarely last over a month because if after a month the trialist hasn't been offered a contract, it's probably because the manager has decided not to hire them." Semi-professional leagues may allow trialliasts to actually play in competitive matches, professional leagues generally don't....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's exactly what I wanted to know, thank you... Delete now that ChrisTheDude and Slumgum have clarified it. --Storkk (talk) 10:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: According to the infobox, he was with teams in the 2004 Belgian Jupiler League, the 2006 German second division and the 2008 German second division, all of which were fully professional leagues. The odds are that he must have played at least one professional game. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The phrase 'the odds are' takes a leap of faith which could be avoided with any evidence of this. Everything on Wikipedia must be verifiable. Can you find verification? I can't. Reserve goalkeepers can spend their career without playing a first-team game. slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 20:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I searched him in playerhistory and he didn't show up; I'm not saying this definitely rules anything out, of course, just a piece of information. matt91486 (talk) 22:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've found him on the club's official website (here), but it seems he hasn't appeared for the team as of yet and therefore, probably, fails WP:ATHLETE. BanRay 22:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above and because he currently fails WP:ATHLETE. Unless any reliable evidence can prove otherwise. --Jimbo^[online] 12:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - he was not in Freiburg's 2. Bundesliga squad for 2007-08 or Erzgebirge Aue's 2. Bundesliga squad for 2005-06. Either he played only for their reserve teams (which is quite possible despite his age, since German reserve teams play in the league system) or he is actually made up. Incidentally to the nominator, making an "assertion for notability" is a criterion only relevant in WP:CSD, and anyway notability is asserted in this article, in the sense that his infobox contains several clubs which participate(d) in fully professional leagues - that's why you have to take it to AfD where we can do more research and see if he is actually notable or not. ugen64 (talk) 15:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 16:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless verified. Punkmorten (talk) 09:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. ——RyanLupin • (talk) 00:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

InkBall[edit]

Is being shipped with a Microsoft OS notable? The only sources are sources from Microsoft (which are not reliable), and that in a way, makes it not pass WP:N. ViperSnake151 13:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would say it does. JuJube (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep (Results 1 - 10 of about 45,700 for inkball microsoft -site:microsoft.com) would tend to indicate to me that the nom has not done his/her homework. Microsoft links are more properly termed not independent of the topic, for what it's worth. Jclemens (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per above reasons. --TV-VCR watch 20:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Yes it is notable. --SkyWalker (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete — The number of hits a game gets on a search engine (see WP:GOOGLEHITS) is not a determinant of notability of a game. The absence of verifiable, third-party (i.e. non-Microsoft) articles that would otherwise establish said notability can be grounds for deletion. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a game guide or instruction manual; this article reads like both. MuZemike (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I change to keep after discovery of verifiable sources to establish the article's notability. See below comment. MuZemike (talk) 23:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment just because the article lacks links doesn't mean they don't exist. Jclemens (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then be bold and appropriately place them in the article. BTW, I now change my decision above to keep in light of the discovery. Make sure they get placed in there so the article doesn't get nominated again for AfD. MuZemike (talk) 23:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So added--well, at least the best and most useful of the links. Jclemens (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Microsoft Windows components (unless more sources can be found) and remove "game guide" information. Many of the Google search results are not useful, as they are not reliable sources (e.g. forums), or do not mention anything more than the name. There are a few results: [7], [8], however I am unable to find much encyclopedic information. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 20:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Google hits are not an indication of notability, and as already pointed out, those sources cannot be considered reliable. Unless sources can be pin pointed which satisfy the reliable secondary sources requirement of both WP:WEB and WP:N, my choice is to delete. --Izno (talk) 01:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to reliable third-party sources being found to meet the WP:GNG. This is exactly how participants in an AFD can engage in a constructive discussion that helps Wikipedia rather than merely !voting. Randomran (talk) 17:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep article as it currently exists is weak, but there are plenty of sources available to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 20:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per CSD:A7. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Maine[edit]

No reliable sources cited; nothing to assert notability as an article about his business was deleted --Snigbrook ^(talk) 12:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless independant sources can be found. Currently, the only source is the subject's own blog. Edward321 (talk) 14:05, 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 redirect to album page. While newUKsinglereleases.co.uk might be a reliable source, it does nothing to establish the notability of this future single. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 18:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rehab (Rihanna song)[edit]

The disturbia music video has been released on UK iTunes so it looks like Disturbia is being released not Rehab. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.44.181 (talk) 13:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lack of reliable sources 666ph666 (talk) 12:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't any reliable sources to prove the song will be released as a single though according to another user it is gaining airplay.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. newUKsinglereleases.co.UK is a reliable source. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 13:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to album. There's only one source saying it's being released, and in only one territory. Even if a release is confirmed, ss per WP:MUSIC#Songs, simply being released does not make a song notable enough to deserve its own page. If it does become a notable single, then the redirect can easily be undone. SKS2K6 (talk) 18:07, 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 Snow, semi speedy close. . TravellingCari 16:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fabiano Lugli[edit]

Contested Prod for suspected hoax. Australian soccer player fails WP:V. No evidence found that he is real. He has allegedly played in the Victoria Premier League since he was 7 years old. Not current his current team's roster.Whittlesea Zebras roster Follows pattern of other known hoaxes • Gene93k (talk) 12:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly a hoax. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 12:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we dont need hoaxes Satu Suro 12:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one of the more poorly done hoaxes I've seen. Edward321 (talk) 14:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as stated, a rather obvious hoax. Sonuvafitch (talk) 15:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Black ngold29 20:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article about a 14 year old star named "Lugli" created by User:Lugli21. Oh what a surprise. Mandsford (talk) 00:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 16:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obvious hoax. --Jimbo^[online] 12:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g5, created by sock of banned user. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alfredo Chiacig[edit]

AfDs for this article:

I cannot find any confirmation of this in the net. The only Alfredo Chiacig I could find is the author of an article about sailing here. I am all for assuming good faith, but this looks like a hoax. Goochelaar (talk) 12:08, 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 Snowball Delete --JForget 01:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hellboy 3 (sequel)[edit]

No resources. The sentences are unclear/confusing. ĤéĺĺвοЎ (talk) 10:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I look into my crystal ball I find that this article fails WP:V. --Pmedema (talk) 11:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:NFF. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crystal ballery. Fails WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NFF Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 11:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 12:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure, unadulterated speculation. Fails WP:NFF by a country mile. PC78 (talk) 12:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete crystalballery. JuJube (talk) 14:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above; talk about a third film is just that -- talk. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Come on, Del Toro's busy with Middle-earth until 2013 and beforehand might adapt The Mountains of Madness. Alientraveller (talk) 14:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Complete speculation. Not to mention the fact that 3 memebers of the cast are already listed without reference(because hollywood never changes or loses actors in a franchise...). Sonuvafitch (talk) 15:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even though a sequel is likely, this is way too crystally bally. -- Quartermaster (talk) 20:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- iDosh! talk? 22:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a candidate for WP:SNOW? ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 23:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The entire basis for the article is that "In a Interview with Del Toro he said that he would like to do a sequel". No doubt. When he gets a invitation, an article can be written. No need to camp out in front of the box office, waiting for the chance to be the first in line to write an article. Mandsford (talk) 00:32, 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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Pacheco and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Pacheco (2nd nomination). The original article location had been protected, but it looks like this one will have to be now as well... пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dani Pacheco[edit]

Contested PROD. The subject hasn't played in a fully professional league and so fails WP:BIO. Mattythewhite (talk) 10:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keeppreviously with barcelona now with liverpool two of biggest clubs in world football .being discussed on liverpool official website now. admin need to rethink and rewrite the football rules /criteria for wp athlete.whether this lad makes it which most feel he will he is already known in the football world.as said on steve elliott talk supporters managers and others use wikipedia to find out about players.this means more use of wikipedia so becoming more popular.also i believe pacheco has a liverpool squad number. try telling the liverpool fans hes not really a proper footballer.90.193.209.63 (talk) 00:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the subject fails WP:ATHLETE --Angelo (talk) 10:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, may well become notable in the future - even if not with Liverpool - but at the moment does not pass WP:ATHLETE. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 12:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice, recreate if he ever makes an appearance in a fully-pro competition. Youth caps do not confer notability either. --Jimbo^[online] 15:17, 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 merge to Communications in Iran. Sandstein 17:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zohreh[edit]

Name applied to a succession of proposed Iranian comm satellites, otherwise unrelated. Prod removed as art does have refs. But to link different uses of the same name results in confusion: nobody in 1995 planned to launch a commsat in 2007. As WP:CRYSTAL the article doesn't belong, but rather there should be more in Communications in Iran to clarify what commsats Iran does use and perhaps how and when those deals were reached. Potatoswatter (talk) 09:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Communications in Iran. Alone this article doesn't merit its own entry. Sonuvafitch (talk) 15:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. The article has many crystal ball problems as we don't know how it would eventually develop. Artene50 (talk) 09:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the part about the communications satellite, as above, but the intro section should be left in that article as some kind of disambiguation page, trying to lift the confusion Potatoswatter mentioned. If there's been repeated plans with significant coverage about launching an Iranian satellite called Zohreh, there should be a page about it, and it shouldn't just redirect to Communications in Iran. --Amalthea (talk) 11:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. The article could use some trimming, as Movingboxes points out. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 18:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Saldan[edit]

Bio of a motivational magician written by User:MotivationalMagic (who has also written motivational magic). Looks like spam to me. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The tone is a problem, but the article appears to be adequately referenced. --Eastmain (talk) 09:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The signature "Rich" on this message suggests very strongly that the article is an autobio. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most of the references/bibliography are questionable; only two of the references verify, one (About.com) points to the Pocono Record article and the two Philadelphia Inquirer references are of questionable relevance and don't directly mention Saldan within the limited (paid news archive) preview/title. – Zedla (talk) 13:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the fact that the article may be an autobio is reason to look at it closely for COI problems, not a reason to delete. --Crusio (talk) 14:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Though there are a few media references, there is nothing to indicate that this person is especially notable or meets WP:N. If the article is kept, it needs to be drastically cut, as most of it seems to be unsourced personal impressions of the subject. The length of the article is way out of line with the notability of the subject and unrelated to the supposed notability. Movingboxes (talk) 00:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Movingboxes. --Crusio (talk) 00:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (Saw a page that said I should comment here? Wasn't sure if that is correct?) Please consider that this article is within the scope of “WikiProject Magic”, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to magic on Wikipedia, and an online Wiki directory of noted magicians and their specialties. Additionally, this article has been heavily revised and reduced to meet all of the items raised by the editors listed above. It's been quite a learning process. Several editors have taken time to provide valuable insights in writing Wiki articles. Now have a better understanding of Wiki guidelines for writers. Please review and reconsider? Regarding notability, while not as strong as a Zig Ziglar, please consider that refs provided (article, tv, book, articles) are stronger than several of the speakers and magicians that I have been reviewing on Wiki. Hoping that might be considered. Google search provides more refs. Thank you. MotivationalMagic (talk) 08:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete; would also have met WP:CSD#A7. Also possible violation of WP:BLP, as we don't know whether the subject is still alive, if she exists at all. Sandstein 17:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lotte Johanna Radtke[edit]

No assertion of notability. There has to have been thousands of guards at different KZ-camps during the war, there is no indication why this guard would have been particularily notable. nor are there any references. Soman (talk) 09:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A google search for Lotte showed only short entries from biographical pages, and all of those (that I saw) were taken verbatim from this wikipedia article. This honestly sounds like someone wrote biographical information about a family member, and it doesn't assert notability. My great uncle piloted a b-24 Liberator in WWII, doesn't mean he needs an article either. Sonuvafitch (talk) 15:56, 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 Speedy Deleted per G11 by User:JzG--JForget 01:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Intervals[edit]

no Notability found triwbe (talk) 09:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A WP:COI article that fails WP:FILM, WP:RS, WP:N and has no encyclopedic content. --Pmedema (talk) 11:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. A screenplay which has been optioned by a potentially non-notable director [9]. Comprehensively fails WP:NFF, and lacks any semblance of notability. Incidentally, the E.B. Hughes article appears to have some pretty severe COI issues as well. PC78 (talk) 14:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, the guy appears to be creating articles for pretty much everything and everyone he has been involved with. I think we have a problem here. PC78 (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I declined the speedy deletion tag, just because I found it very difficult to work out what the article was about. Given the context I thought it possible that the subject of the article was worthy of inclusion, but that the text was badly written by the author. See also the contributions of this author. They appear to be self-promotion/conflict-of-interest. - Richard Cavell (talk) 02:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising of a topic not meaningfully covered by reliable sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete no context. will re-tag ukexpat (talk) 19:05, 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 per WP:ATHLETE and WP:BIO. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Elliott (footballer)[edit]

This article on a footballer was originally PROD'ed on the grounds that the player has never played in a fully professional league and therefore fails WP:ATHLETE. PROD was then removed with the comment "Competitors who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis. removed deletion notice as it said i could"........even though the player hasn't played in a fully professional league..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He plays for a club that meets the notability-criteria and thus I think the same criteria should be used for him. Wikipedia should strive for collecting as much knowledge as possible and this article provides enough information for anyone interested in the club's players. I do not see any reason to have only articles on those players who competed in a fully professional league before and ignore all those who never managed this (yet) as it only leads to the situation that when viewing Lewes FC you can only find information on a few players while you could find it on every player if such guidelines as WP:ATHLETE were treated with a bit of common sense and not as the only possible criteria. So#Why 11:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inheireted. Just because his club is notable doesn't make him notable. -Djsasso (talk) 19:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE, and probably WP:BIO as well. Hasn't even played a game at Conference National level yet, and even when he does he will be one level short of meeting the above criteria. - fchd (talk) 11:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability is not inherited, and he clearly fails WP:ATHLETE - even though his club may pass the notability guidelines, he clearly doesn't. The only way he could possibly pass as notable is if he had a number of third-party reliable sources talking about him, and he doesn't. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 12:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully professional league or competition. --Jimbo^[online] 15:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article on Steve Elliott (footballer) is supported by the WikiProject on Football, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Association football related articles on Wikipedia.Steve is a paid footballer so could be classed as professional whilst not wanting to argue ins and outs surely wikipedia needs to evolve and progress all the time .are admin aware supporters managers clubs often try to refer to wikipedia about players to find out what there background is. this could mean more use if wikipedia was to recognise non league football especially the highest divisions.steve has been at an academy of a pro club could also have moved to grimsby a pro club but chose a club looking to progress.careful thought and encourageing non league could be beneficial to all after all he is on lewes fc page as a named player .if wiki is not for him then should the clubs of that level of football be allowed to name players or even have a wiki page.i obviously dont want to see non league clubs have there pages removed quite the opposite in fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.209.61 (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC) — 90.193.209.61 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- His club is notable. He isn't. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 20:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Being paid doesn't mean you're a professional footballer. As he is a part-time footballer he is classed as semi-professional, not amateur as people are suggesting. Amateur is pub football. --Jimbo^[online] 12:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete amateur footballer who definitely fails WP:ATHLETE. Not really worthy of an article. --Angelo (talk) 20:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable amateur athlete that plays for notable club. Fails WP:ATHLETE. --Deadly∀ssassin 21:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, being paid is not enough. We have (overly inclusive, even) criteria. Punkmorten (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How, pray tell, are these criteria "overly inclusive"? I will give you 1 example - Joe Lewis, who plays for recently promoted Peterborough United, was called up to Fabio Capello's last England squad - yet he has not made any league appearances in a level higher than League Two! That's "barely notable" by our standards. The notability criteria for athletes has many problems, chief among them inconsistency, but I don't think being "overly inclusive" is one of those problems... ugen64 (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sorry, but no BanRay 22:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 16:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keepthe links in the steve elliott article such as lewes fc and leatherhead fc and others give details of clubs at a lower level than steve plays so presumably they are notable. the player in this case steve is not notable apparently even though he plays a higher level than some of the notable clubs. the divions are recognised by wiki so become notable eg conference south also other divisons are notable yet a player playing higher level is not notable. whatever the outcome it seems a grey area.Red01red (talk) 16:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't a grey area at all. The WP:ATHLETE policy states that a sportsman must have played in a "fully professional league" i.e. one where all players are full-time sportsmen. None of the leagues this player has played in come even close to meeting that requirement -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The bit about clubs at his level or lower being notable is also irrelevant, as the policies on clubs and players are completely separate. A club might be notable but that doesn't mean every player that's played for them is. It's the same with bands - Scouting for Girls are clearly a notable band, but their drummer Peter Ellard isn't notable in his own right......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely non-notable! Fails WP:Athlete by some margin. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:47, 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 redirect both to Championship (professional wrestling) . lifebaka (talk - contribs) 18:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of wrestling championships[edit]

These pages were created by a new user. I have declined to speedy delete them. I would like AfD participants to consider whether we would like to have these articles - obviously they both need improvement. Richard Cavell (talk) 07:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 08:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Useless repetitive list. Content listed elsewhere (Championship (professional wrestling))^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 08:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect both to Championship (professional wrestling) since it looks like all the information is contained there (if I'm wrong, then first Merge any extra to that article). Olaf Davis | Talk 10:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. I add my praise for the nominator, who has pointed out that the article author is new to Wikipedia. Welcome to Wikipedia, Sid xx, and you're encouraged to keep contributing. As the template for new articles says, it's often a good idea to see if the subject is covered elsewhere. Mandsford (talk) 00:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE List of wrestling championships and keep List of wrestling titles.Sid xx
- Would you like to explain why you think one is delete-worthy and not the other, Sid? Olaf Davis | Talk 09:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, I'd really rather see a delete as the info is already covered elsewhere (and because I'd hate to see more pointless redirects), but this seems to be where the discussion is going. Nikki311 03:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirects are cheap: if having one there prevents someone else from creating the article six months down the line and another AfD for it, the amount of time saved will be well worth it. Olaf Davis | Talk 09:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted by me, since it was tagged as a copyvio by a bot. Although no copyright was asserted from the source website, the text of the article appears to be plagiarised. The author's username strongly suggests that he is the subject of the article, causing problems with conflict of interest. The subject of the article probably is notable, but the article needs to be written by someone unrelated. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Shulman[edit]

Copy edit from http://www.andrewshulman.com/ ĤéĺĺвοЎ (talk) 07:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Notability is probably not an issue, but I'm afraid that this article seems to be an autobiography, thus breaking WP:NPOV and WP:COI. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:14, 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. Was speedy deleted by User:Rebecca. Canley (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother Australia 2009[edit]

Unverified nonsense. The show has been axed. -- Longhair\^talk 07:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC) Longhair\^talk 07:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Longhair\^talk 07:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There have been a few stories about other channels being interested in the series, but this is speculation (and seems unlikely to occur). Nick Dowling (talk) 07:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the second sentence, which claims that Channel 9 will screen the show, cannot be proved. It is merely speculation at this point. The rest of the article is simply rehashing things from past series. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The show is cancelled, and if it comes back, it's probably going to be on a cable channel more than a national Australian network based on ratings and noteriety. No need for this article if the show may not exist. Nate • (chatter) 10:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The relevant aspects of the topic are amply covered at Big Brother Australia already. Here's a link to recent Google News on the topic if anyone's interested. Townlake (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, totally unverified speculation - the very model of what WP:CRYSTAL is about. States that BB09 may be on Nine, and then guesses the format, theme music and hosts for the show in the event that this actually happens. --Canley (talk) 03:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Augusta, Kentucky#Education (non-admin closure). --Explodicle (T/C) 15:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Augustine Elementary School (Augusta, Kentucky)[edit]

Article about an elementary school that fails to assert notability or provide references to third-party sources. Fail WP:SCHOOL. Steve Carlson^Talk 06:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable school. I am not a dog (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Augusta, Kentucky#Education to where I have already merged the factual content. TerriersFan (talk) 16:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested by Terriers. What's surprising is that the article has existed for exactly a year and a half (created 18 months ago, Jan 19 2007) and is only now being nominated. Mandsford (talk) 00:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:BEFORE and suggestions above. Neier (talk) 06:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Happyme22 (talk) 18:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motivational magic[edit]

Guerrilla spam for a load of motivational magicians. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spam. Movingboxes (talk) 06:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam. No indication that this subject has any notability. --Crusio (talk) 14:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as WP:SPAM The creator is using Wikipedia to promote his product. At $1,500 to $12,000 a presentation, I wouldn't bite. Artene50 (talk) 09:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Artene50, please re-read this article. There is no mention of company, nor self promotion, nor services. There are several specific specialties in the world of magic, such as street magic, closeup magic, stage magic. Motivational magic is a relatively new specialty, which rose in popularity in the 1990s. In writing this article, we followed the outline of the article on “Motivational Speakers”, which listed descriptions, certifications, fees and noted specialists in the field. Additionally, please consider that this article is within the scope of “WikiProject Magic”, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to magic on Wikipedia, and an online Wiki directory of noted magicians and their specialties. Yes, my screen name is concern for COI, and perhaps it should have been submitted by someone else for that concern -- but this article has indeed been written from a neutral observer POV. Also note that there are more specialists in this area of magic, than in other areas of magic. (“stage illusionists”, for example probably have less than 100 full-time paid professionals in the United States.) I can contribute great volumes of information to Wiki on the world of magic, its inner workings, and its community of high achievers; but, I feel like many of the editors viciously pounce on new writers with unbridled venom, and a good portion of it is groundless. It is very discouraging to new writers who want to contribute. Easy to see why so many give up and move on to other things. MotivationalMagic (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So why not try contributing to other articles first? There is no glory in creating an article. If it is really notable, someone else will create it witough the suspicion of spamming and conflict of interest.
Meanwhile, Delete seems a non-notable profession at the moment, and not a type of magic, just a new venue for magicians. Needs more independant sources to prove notability (ie from national newspapers discussing it, not magicians selling it, or local papers filling in on a slow news day).Yobmod (talk) 12:11, 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 redirect to Laredo, Texas#Elementary and secondary , where TerriersFan has already merged the content. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 18:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Augustine Elementary School (Laredo, Texas)[edit]

Article about an elementary school, fails to assert notability or provide references to third-party sources. Fail WP:SCHOOL. Steve Carlson^Talk 06:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Laredo, Texas#Elementary and secondary to where I have already completed the merge. TerriersFan (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:BEFORE and suggestions above. Neier (talk) 06:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Meadows Place, Texas Tim Vickers (talk) 20:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher M. Pham Plaza[edit]

Non-notable shopping center. Wikipedia is not a local directory or phone book. RayAYang (talk) 05:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 10:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 10:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Meadows Place, Texas. The article's creator states that although the mall's address is in Stafford, Texas, the mall is located in Meadows Place. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, as per Brewcrewer. Not sure if it's even notable enough for a section there though. --Amalthea (talk) 12:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Messy, no official site, not notable, not even an anchor list. TheListUpdater (talk) 21:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the Article has not yet had time to show its WP:Notability due to the fact that it has not even been on WP for less than a week. Lets give the Article a chance, and see what WP:POTENTIAL it has. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 15:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But does it have POTENTIAL? In a web search, I find one press release [10], a property description [11] and some other page [12] – that's it. --Amalthea (talk) 15:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Article meets the notability requirements of Wikipedia, and it cites adequate references.--Waterblack (talk) 00:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- May I ask which references you consider adequate by WP:RS, and how you think that notability requirements are met? I also notice that this is your first contribution as a registered wikipedian, which I find a bit surprising. Please note that this is not a ballot, so you should support your opinion to keep this article with the guidelines agreed upon in Notability ff. --Amalthea (talk) 00:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as another average not notable small mall. Fails WP:N. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:NFF. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rajneeti[edit]

No evidence that this film ever began shooting. Thus, it appears to fail future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that shooting has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:NFF. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A recent article gives no indication that filming has yet began. PC78 (talk) 12:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 22:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: its been one-and-a-half years since this article has been put up(by a well know sockpupeteer). The film should have been released(or at least in-shooting) by now if it was true. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 08:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:NFF. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate (film)[edit]

Appears to fail future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that shooting has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't seem to find any reliable sources regarding this film... up and coming or not... --Pmedema (talk) 11:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are several sources about this film from 2006, but I can't find anything more recent, or indeed, anything to suggest the film was ever made or will still be made. PC78 (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:CRYSTAL without any recent sources. —97198 talk 15:43, 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 per WP:NFF. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mirchi (film)[edit]

Appears to fail future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that shooting has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:NFF. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. [13] & [14] suggest that the film has been shelved. [15] and other sources suggest otherwise, but I can't find anything to indicate that shooting ever began. PC78 (talk) 14:27, 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, nomination withdrawn and notability has been discussed. Non-admin closure. Jamie^☆S93 01:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarion (programming language)[edit]

While we don't seem to have any notability criteria when it comes to programming languages, I don't believe this satisfies the general notability requirements we have here. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck per notability discussion below. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Clarion programming language is a legacy language that is notable. Unfortunately, the notability under WP:SOFTWARE has fallen to WP:COMPANY and does not take into consideration the differences of notability with software, programming language, etc... Clarion does pass WP:N and there is plenty of WP:RS regarding it. The article does need to be wiki'd to get rid of the WP:OR look that it has, although it does have the references, it now needs the direct citations and formating. --Pmedema (talk) 05:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just curious, but which references do you believe establish notability? Most of them appear to be sites that just reprint company press releases (via third parties, I'm specifically looking at the "allbusiness" references). Of the remainder, some appear to be from some sort of newsletter (which I haven't checked out, but I doubt it has the kind of readership that would justify taking seriously). I'm just curious if I overlooked something. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's significant enough that we ought to have an article on it. Admittedly it's mainly of historical interest, but we have articles on all sorts of obscure topics. - Richard Cavell (talk) 06:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to have had sufficient coverage.--Michig (talk) 08:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs some rewriting, but clearly has enough third-party coverage to pass WP:V and WP:N. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 12:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is significant enough to keep. I agree with Pmedema. Fmccown (talk) 18:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Important language, should be kept. QuantumShadow (talk) 11:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm fascinated that so many people think this is notable and yet not a single one of them can point out anything that establishes the subjects notability. Anyone, please? Does this language show up in lists of popular programming languages (in my own personal research prior to nominating it: no, it doesn't appear to be included in such lists, despite other older languages being included such as COBOL and FORTRAN)? Was it ever notable? I'm just looking for some justification for all these Keep votes. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK - writeup here at Art of Programming, user groups worldwide UK, US, Aus, S Africa, there's even a Clarion for Dummies book from the well-known series, etc. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 10:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, while the artofprogramming.net site and the various user groups aren't reliable sources which can be used to gauge notability, the "for Dummies" book (as well as the various other books linked underneath by other publishers) makes a reasonable case. Granted, they're from the early and mid 1990s, but notability isn't temporary. With that in mind I withdraw my proposal for deletion. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. GreyCat (talk) 02:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, nominator withdrawn, more sources have been found. ——RyanLupin • (talk) 08:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sleepless Nights (Patty Loveless album)[edit]

No reliable third party coverage yet. Allmusic gives a blank listing for the album, Amazon isn't reliable, and the other sources are primary. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 23:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn now that more sources have been found. Ten Pound ~~Hammer~~ Farfel and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps)} 05:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:CRYSTAL & WP:MUSIC#Albums. Keep in light of the lovely new references. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Standard nonsense from a very poor editor Bwmoll3 (talk) 01:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not you again. You're the only person on this whole project who thinks I'm a poor editor. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 18:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak ~~Delete~~ no longer fails notability criteria with the article now having references which aren't trivial and are from 3rd parties. I'm not sure about ~~WP:Crystal~~using Amazon.com as a reference though or about "primary sources" in general. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Singer is notable. Upcoming new release from the singer is notable. If album title changes the article can be moved. If track listing changes, or new information becomes available, then the article can be edited. This is not quite WP:CRYSTAL as record labels and artists announce albums well in advance. BMW(drive) 12:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 18:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete even though I created this article this article should be deleted for now until more sources can be found. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think with the source from Patty Loveless' website below this should stay. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 01:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom and above comment. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Album title and track listing verified in this article from Country Standard Time. Eric444 (talk) 06:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Given that we have a tracklisting and release date which is not too far into the future, apparently reported in reliable sources, I see no benefit from deleting this.--Michig (talk) 08:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia:MUSIC#Albums says "Once the artist or their record label has publicly confirmed the title, track listing and release date, an article about the album is not a WP:CRYSTAL violation." Since her official website [16] does just that, CRYSTAL is not violated. The other concern is lack of reliable sources, but the GAC and Country Standard Time references look like they satisfy that to me. Olaf Davis | Talk 10:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No justification for deletion. Notible artist & Album meets all criteria for retention. Bwmoll3 (talk) 01:33, 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 Redirect to Hilary Duff Waggers (talk) 12:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reach Out (And Touch Me)[edit]

This article needs to be deleted, as it fails Wikipedia's policies/guidelines for notability of songs (never charted anywhere), for verifiability and for future predictions. And plus that (miserable) attempt to create an in-line citation on the third line of the last paragraph is hilarious. Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} 04:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Redirect to Hilary Duff. Hasn't charted, and has no album to redirect to. --Amalthea (talk) 12:53, 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. Tiptoety ^talk 15:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J. Dean McClain[edit]

Unreferenced, orphaned article which fails to establish why this person is notable. Zero verifiable 3rd party references. Rtphokie (talk) 03:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I found a couple refs, and this is the sort of subject and timeframe that probably has more offline refs than online ones. Called "pioneering", at least in his market, seems to be a claim of notability, along with the multi-market Hall of Fame nom. Shawisland (talk) 04:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Where are these refs? Can you add them to the article, or at least mention them here so another editor can add them to the article?--Rtphokie (talk) 11:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Having a link to an obit doesn't prove notability. I don't think being on a ballot of nominees for the "Texas Radio Hall of Fame" makes one notable.--Celtus (talk) 10:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a nominee for a regional Hall of Fame isn't notable, and being the host of a possibly notable radio show isn't either.
As Shawisland said, there might be offline references with significant coverage about him as host of that show though, but as it is I think it fails WP:BIO. --Amalthea (talk) 11:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. He sounds notable from reading the obituary, but if that's all that can be provided as a reference, he really isn't. Someone important enough for an article should have done something worth noting in their lifetime - if such references can be provided, I'll change my mind, but otherwise this should be deleted. Terraxos (talk) 04:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Web operating system . As this is a recreation of deleted material, I will also protect the redirect. Waggers (talk) 12:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Browser OS[edit]

This article is about a web app with unknown adoption, notability is not established. References are in German, which makes notability hard to verify. Steve Carlson^Talk 03:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Without having a WP:SOFTWARE that is working, it falls to WP:COMPANY of which this "web operating system" is not notable... even if reliable sources could be found... Obliterate... Poof!
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think my comment from the talk page still holds... This is a recreation of deleted material (OOS from iCube). Deleted as non-notable advertisement. Original version here. AfD here. -- Swerdnaneb 00:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Recreation of deleted material, at least if you're referring to WP:CSD#G4, does only apply if it was deleted after an XfD, which is not the case here. --Amalthea (talk) 11:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Web operating system, and maybe include some reference there. Although I like it, at the moment it simply fails WP:NOTE. I removed most of the links since they only referred to weblink collections or trivial information themselves, and while the online article in derStandard is significant and reliable, it's not enough to fulfill WP:NOTE. --Amalthea (talk) 11:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete — caknuck _° is back from his wikisiesta 15:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Pidwell[edit]

Not Notable Ammar gerrard117 (talk) 03:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, no indication of notability, and the article creator's nick implies they're a relative of the subject. 15:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward321 (talk • contribs)

Keep. Has recieved a notable award or honor with the QSM [17], so he complies with WP:BIO. --Amalthea (talk) 12:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. According to this NZ Herald article more than 80 people received the QSM this year alone. God help us if they are all notable, along with the thousands of other people who must have received it since 1975. --Helenalex (talk) 01:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the ref Henalex gave is only one of two rounds of honours each year. QSM is about the lowest level of honour. Otherwise it lacks references and is basically a genealogy entry (esp given its form 24 hours ago). dramatic (talk) 08:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.

Delete, can't find any evidence of notability other than the award, and on its own it doesn't seem enough. If it indicated notability, you'd expect to find at least one little article about the subject, but all I can find is quotes from him as a surf club representative. Ryan Paddy (talk) 09:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Ryan Paddy. Bondegezou (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete. My Nana has a QSM, she should get a page. Plan 8 (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I note that the last paragraph of the current version gives a reference of self and the article is signed immediately after. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was — When weighing the two sides of the argument, I see the delete side presents a stronger reasoning citing little verifiability or reliable sources providing notability. While most of the keep arguments are along the lines of "I like him" made by SPAs. It's clear consensus is leaning towards delete. —[DeadEyeArrow – Talk – Contribs] 07:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Laszlo[edit]

Child actor with a few guest appearances. Sole author has contested prod. I believe fails WP:ENTERTAINER RayAYang (talk) 03:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all his roles as listed by imdb[18] are all when he was less than 5 years old, due to obvious limitations the role of a five year old is not going to be particularly notable. My search for RS to expand that article failed as well. - Icewedge (talk) 03:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

s>*Keep Evan is probably one of the finest actors ever to play a young person on the screen. Andrew Lau II (talk) 06:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding comment added by Andrew Lau II, alleged by Netsnipe to be a sockpuppet of a banned user —Preceding unsigned comment added by DollyD (talk • contribs) Andrew Lau II is a blocked vandal. WWGB (talk) 12:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Evan has also been credited as "Evan Loszlo" and has appeared in other productions not listed in IMDB. DollyD (talk) 07:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been .included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have many print references. 210.87.17.39 (talk) 07:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But Add Sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by LOLfats (talk • contribs) 01:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Evan Loszlo is well known as a stage actor also as well as TV. 202.168.11.22 (talk) 11:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— 202.168.11.22 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 12:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletefails notability and verifiability criteria without one single reliable 3rd party source showing up in 236Ghit or 21GNews hits. When "Evan Laszlo" is used in conjunction with play or stage even less comes up. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Jasynnash2 based their comment on a single Google search, and should be disregarded. Canadian Actor Expert (talk) 07:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)WWGB (talk) 12:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are even less Ghits and GNews hits for "Evan Loszlo". If you can provide the reliable 3rd party references for either of these names please do so. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stong Keep Although only 13, he's pretty well known in Canada Canadian Actor Expert (talk) 07:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)— Canadian Actor Expert (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Jasynnash2 has based their entire frame of reference in this debate on the number of "GHits" encountered in a hastily conducted Google search. Anyone with knowledge of the Canadian theatrical scene would confirm that Evan is a rising young actor. He is often credited with his full name (including middle name) in more recent roles since Leap Years, and including Puck Hogs Canadian Actor Expert (talk) 11:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)— Canadian Actor Expert (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Actually I have done a number of searches using not just google but, other search engines as well and searched using a large variety of information and combinations of words. Please do not continue to disparage me in this way and let's all address the issue at hand which is the article itself and the policies and guidelines of the project. If you wish to provide his middle name (which doesn't seem to be in the article) I'll do even more searches. Thank you. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apparent notable Canadian actor. Article needs much expansion and cleanup, especially of recent roles. DollyD (talk) 12:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per WP:V as the article references no reliable sources. The article can be recreated if notability and sources come up later. Jim Miller (talk) 13:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete. No reliable sources, and no source (reliable, or not) for his being the "star" of When Andrew Came Home. IMDB doesn't even have him in the Cast Overview section, you have to go to the Full Cast. Unless he's a named actor in something, and we can find a reliable source for that (IMDB is not generally considered reliable), he's got to go. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, as an aside, if the editor who is busy removing tags from this article would instead find some starring roles, with sources for them, the article might be saved. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stong Keep Keep and Expand Untalented Sibling (talk) 13:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)— Untalented Sibling (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stong Keep Evan has been featured in articles appearing in The Globe and Mail Replovandalate (talk) 22:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Non-notable child actor with very few minor TV roles. In the upcoming film (not yet released) he doesn't even have a part as a named character. He is listed as "Fat kid #2". This is not notable. Maybe if he progresses in his next film to "Fat kid #1" that might be notable.—G716 <^T·_C> 01:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Dude it's not true, He's not really credited as Fat Kid in the movie. Stagemom67 (talk) 02:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evan is a great actor and an inspiration to People of Weight like ourselves. Kitty Lighter (talk) 01:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stong Keep We're all very proud of Evan. Stagemom67 (talk) 02:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It has been suggested that there was coverage in The Globe and Mail, but no reference has been provided and a search of their web site was sterile. Ma^t_chups 02:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yup we have the articles in the scrapbook cut and pasted. Stagemom67 (talk) 02:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Totally Keep We need this article, its heaps awesome. Canadian Actor Expert (talk) 03:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:52, 26 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. Ѕandahl 18:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yvette Paaoski[edit]

Did a google search and didn't get result on a musician. Non-notable artist Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 03:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability; only WP page referring to her was deleted (Kingdom of Reign). JJL (talk) 03:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Not even one Google hit other then the Wikipedia article. Fails WP:N and WP:V outright. So tagged. --Pmedema (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:52, 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 Happyme22 (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Juha-Pekka Autti[edit]

No sources about musician. Non-notable artist Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 03:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Assuming that the spelling is correct, there is one non wiki link at google. Fails WP:MUSIC. --Amalthea (talk) 12:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant hoax. Nothing on the web about the band Noctosin other than this page and the similar hoax Sergei Körleinen. The one non-wiki link that Amalthea refers to above is actually a wiki mirror of the Sergei Körleinen article. Hoax, hoax and double hoaxes!--Bardin (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh. I just looked through the contributers contributions and all other hoax articles created by them seem to be deleted at least. See also User talk:Finlandian and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yvette Paaoski. --Amalthea (talk) 14:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snowball Delete --JForget 01:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LAMO[edit]

Contested prod. Violates WP:MADEUP. Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 02:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Neologism, unreferenced, non-notable. WWGB (talk) 02:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

there is nothing wrong with my article. The miss-spelling has gotten popular with some of the people i talk to daily and is still growing slowly. This is notable. If someone can create LOL or LMAO, it was notable for them. Why cant mine be. As the Notability article states The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". "Notability is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity"" Its gotten popularity, so it counts as being notable. Its important because its gaining popularity. This is history. User:Sasuke781 10:20, 19 July 2008

Speedy delete Wikipedia is not for stuff we've made up one day, even if it has "gotten popular with some of the people i talk to daily." Movingboxes (talk) 03:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think this falls under a speedy criteria (not incoherent, not a hoax, not A7-eligible, etc.), but this is unsourceable and falls under Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Respectfully recommend the creator read up on Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and reliable sources. Townlake (talk) 04:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. - Longhair\^talk 07:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not every mispelling merits an article. Teh phail. JuJube (talk) 07:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, article makes little sense, misspelling. How is this possibly notable? ®∂бЯέЩ§τЄґ ♪♫♪ 08:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OMG a WP:SNOWball fight! {sigh} Popular with you and your friends a Wikipedia article does not make!
Note to creator In addition to the policies Townlake mentions above, you may want to read WP:Crystal: if the phrase is 'gaining popularity' and continues to do so until it becomes widespread and gets mentioned in reliable sources we can re-create the article. Until then though, keeping the page based on speculation about how common it will become is unnecessary. Also, above you quote that "Notability is distinct from... popularity" and in the next sentence say "Its gotten popularity, so it counts as being notable." Since 'distinct' means 'different', your argument doesn't seem to hold much water. Best, Olaf Davis | Talk 10:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above, ~~then redirect to LOL as a plausible misspelling of "LMAO"~~ Resolute 18:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't Redirect LAMO is close to both LMAO and LAMP... and LAME and LAMB and CAMO and other one-letter-offs. Townlake (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good point. Reso lute 03:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "The analogy was created by Ethan Monahan as pure accident and it stuck with him." So you wrote an entire article about a typo? WFT?! Mandsford (talk) 00:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Lamo" is a surname (as in Adrian Lamo), the space needs to be reserved as a dab page. Fothergill Volkensniff IV (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ollabelle[edit]

After I tagged this article for speedy, its creator mentioned something about a rather high number of listeners on an online music site. It seems credible, so I withdrew my own speedy and brought the article here. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 02:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd say keep because there does seem to be some notability through WP:BAND and sourcing available. BUT... my WP:HEY is that the article be expanded with more information and the sourcing to go with it. The article, as it is, is not encyclopedic. --Pmedema (talk) 09:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the (re)creator of this article, I agree with Pmedema that it needs expanded, and can work on this. I'd also like to thank Blanchardb for not speedy-deleting them.

1. Ollabelle is fairly well known, appearing in locations such as Madison Square Park, and

2. 13 Wikipedia pages already mention and link to Ollabelle

3. They have 3K listeners on last.fm.

4. Members of Ollabelle have played in the same band as members of Jeff Buckley's band. (See: [19])

5. Members of Ollabelle have been featured in Chris Smither's album Leave the Light On, which is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article.

--AlanH (talk) 01:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have expanded the article, hoping that it is more encyclopedic now. Additionally, I have learned:

6. Ollabelle's second album was produced by a longtime member of Bob Dylan's band.

--AlanH (talk) 03:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ollabelle seems to be notable enough for inclusion, but just barely. The page seriously needs to be Wikifyed and alot more information needs to be included. I'd say delete now, but if the author could add more information and confirm notability, then i'd say keep. – Jerry^teps 03:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - if you think they are notable enough for inclusion (even if barely), then there is no reason to delete the article. A lack of references is an editting issue that could be addressed with a ((unref)) tag. -- Whpq (talk) 13:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment All information in the article is referenced. --AlanH (talk) 14:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: At the time of writing there was barely any information on the page, and barely indicated why it was significant. The main article still needs alot more information though. The albums also need expanding. – Jerry^teps 08:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand this interview from All Things Considered, and this review in Entertainment Weekly is rather convincing. I also found this, this, this and a few other news hits that look promising. If I weren't about to go to bed, I'd expand the article myself. Ten Pound ~~Hammer~~ Farfel and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps)} 03:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Good stuff; thanks for the links! --AlanH (talk) 14:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Band seems slightly notable but still needs alot more information in it. – Jerry^teps 08:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - good work on the part of User:TenPoundHammer in finding reliable sources establishing notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a popular band and has been reported on in many many places. Why bring it here? -MrFizyx (talk) 19:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete — caknuck _° is back from his wikisiesta 14:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Tapinos[edit]

Non notable news broadcster DimaG (talk) 02:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has been mentioned in some 3rd party references here and here but Tapinos really isn't the subject of either article, just mentioned in support of the main subject of the articles. I think it will take a bit more for a news reader to cross into notability. Perhaps there are some awards somewhere that haven't been mentioned.--Rtphokie (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO. No significant coverage. --Amalthea (talk) 10:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to List of Disney's 101 Dalmatians: The Series characters. —Sean Whitton / 20:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of animal characters in the 101 Dalmatians franchise[edit]

Unnecessary and redundant list making claims of a 101 Dalmatian franchise that contains nothing but WP:PLOT summary and original research, including the claim that there is a franchise at all. Its redundant to the individual articles, which have character sections as they are actually called for, List of Disney's 101 Dalmatians: The Series characters, and the individual character articles. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 06:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge As Collecto points out, it's been done, and it's been done more concisely in List of Disney's 101 Dalmatians: The Series characters. Feel free to contribute to that article, if there's something relevant to add. Mandsford (talk) 00:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Something else. Well, it *is* a franchise, there are a number of books, films, series, toys about it. However, I don't think it's redundant. I know neither books nor films nor series, but the Series characters seem to be different to the "franchise" characters. If anything, I think the list of series characters should be merged into this one.
Note by the way that the links in the "series characters" list all redirect to the franchise article, or somewhere else completely.
I'm unsure what to do, but deletion seems premature. --Amalthea (talk) 15:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The original books are not part of any Disney franchise. The films, series, etc may be considered a Disney franchise for it, I suppose, but not the original books. Both lists are a mess, though, and not sure either is really needed, but the series list is at least sort of in keeping with a television series article. Film articles generally don't have separate character lists, much less individual character articles. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned the books because they are part of Template:101 Dalmatians, which is supposedly about the 101 Dalmatians franchise, *not* specifically about the Disney 101 Dalmatians franchise — as is the article in discussion, right? It seems notable enough to warrant a character list, certainly notable along the lines of List of minor characters in the Matrix series (WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFF alert).
But, as I said, I don't really know anything about it, in my opinion some kind of merge is best here. --Amalthea (talk) 16:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Series characters article is a good model for how much space should be devoted to describing a character; the franchise characters article is rather verbose about what's in the TV show, but includes characters from the (three?) films, as well as the book. A merger of the two articles would be ideal. Based on Amalthea's argument, I'd vote for merge rather than delete. Mandsford (talk) 16:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Esn (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Disney's 101 Dalmatians: The Series characters and reformat the list at The Series to state what book/movie the character was in, eliminating all that "original books are not the same as movie" arguement. TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 23:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Disney's 101 Dalmatians: The Series characters - no need to have both lists --T-rex 18:57, 26 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. Happyme22 (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First United Methodist Church of Lufkin[edit]

The article doesn't assert notability, fails WP:ORG (Non-commercial organizations), and there do not look to be any decent, secondary source. Call me sacrilegious... :P Leonard^(Bloom) 01:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Leonard^(Bloom) 01:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Sorry, Delete~~ Sorry, Keep Wow, I totally missed the 2,000 members figure, which would make this a megachurch. Thanks Paul. Mandsford (talk) 16:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC) With the exception of some that have been described as "inherently notable", most organizations have to prove their notability in order to merit keeping their own page on Wikipedia. Is this church more notable than any other church in Lufkin, Texas? Say, perhaps, the East District United Methodist Church? Or the Felton Avenue Church of Christ? Has it received recognition, perhaps, by the General Conference of the United Methodist Church. Notability has to be shown in some way, and the article doesn't demonstrate it. Mandsford (talk) 00:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Neutral Delete. Speedily even, since it doesn't assert notability: tens of thousands of churches or church communities around the world have 2000 members and are 125 years old or older. What makes this one special? --Amalthea (talk) 12:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because having 2000 members is NOT something that tens of thousands of churches have. Most churches that focus on membership numbers have 1,000 as their ultimate goal and books/workshops have been produced to support that. I know that for Wikipedia, that's just a number--but the industry itself views the number as significant. Having doubled the industry standard of significant, I think it's worth a closer look.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My knowledge of US methodist churchs is arguably limited - is it somewhere in the top 20 communities among those? I was arguing based on the situation in my country, where pretty much every municipality (more than 2000 citicens on average) has at least one church community, more than 50% of the people are in a church, so there must be a thousand communities of that size here alone.
  That's a very rough estimation of course, but the twenty ghits for that name aren't implying great notability either. --Amalthea (talk) 15:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ETA: There are more than 25 million Roman Catholics in Germany, there are close to 13,000 parishes, that's already 2000 members on average. --Amalthea (talk) 15:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, but that doesn't mean that any single cathedral in the parish has 2,000 people attending. There usually is more than one Roman Catholic church serving a parish. Mandsford (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hmm. The current article says: The church has a membership of over 2,000. I'm unsure of what that means. Does it mean that there are 2,000 people regularly attending services, at the same time? Or does it mean that the community has 2,000 members? The latter seems, as I said, relatively small.
      Anyway, after a more thorough search, a look at First United Methodist Church (yeah, WP:OTHERSTUFF) and because I'm probably blinded by a fundementally different situation here I'll keep out of this discussion and change my vote to neutral. Or rather, I'll go with the close to useless WP:NPT in-a-nutshell comment: Localities that are, will be, or have been, recognized by a government, communitity or a representable subsection of the populace might be considered notable.
      I recommend though to rename the article First United Methodist Church (Lufkin, Texas) - it's just not called "First United Methodist Church of Lufkin" which is why I didn't find any Google results at first - and neither did the nominator.
      Cheers, Amalthea (talk) 18:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Left unsaid here is the fact the church is over a 100 years old, and should have some historical significance. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, every village church in Europe is over a hundred years old if it managed to survive war and fire. :)
  It sure might have historical significance, but as it stands I can't even find sources that mention the age of the church. The official website mentions none of it: not the age, not the (allegedly very notable) size, not even a picture. Wait, I stand corrected: I just now found two web sources, each mentioning the 125th anniversary celebration while in fact talking about the great cookbook that was sold there [20] [21]. Hmm.
  According to WP:NPT, it still is not notable. All the information that was used above to support is at the very least unsourced, and I haven't found *any* reliable sources writing about the church that go beyond trivial coverage, e.g. service announcements or the like.
  The same is, of course, true for a great many church articles (or school articles, for that matter) on Wikipedia. I'd welcome a clearer community consensus on where we want to be in that regard. In principle, BTW, after thinking about it quite some time today, I'd even support Wikipedia having an article about any dedicated church building if it's either of a certain age or of a certain size. --Amalthea (talk) 22:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's unfair to compare places that were inhabited for thousands of years to places that are only inhabited for a few hundred years. While a 100 year old church might not be a big deal in a place that has been around for far longer, a 100-year old church is a big deal to a place that only been around for a few hundred years. Moreover, and I guess I'm borrowing from the aforementioned size argument, a 100-year old church in a small village can properly be merged into the article on the village, but a large churh within a large city cannot properly be merged. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added in a source for the church attendance. I agree that the page title should be moved in order to be consistent with practice, and I think I'll be bold and go ahead and do that. I would tend to agree with Amalthea that the age of the church alone wouldn't make it notable. There are lots of churches in the United States that existed before 1908, at least one in every town; not surprisingly, those that have the word "First" in their names tend to have been established before the ones that are not as old. Mandsford (talk) 23:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A church with 2,000 member is small. In a city a church of this size is rather normal or maybe the smallest one available. Fails WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N and WP:ORG. Now if they are still in the same building from when they were founded, the building probably is notable. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Average? 2,000 is not "small" for church membership... the average church attendance for the PCA is reported to be 205 in 2007. That's one denomination, true... but a good sample.[22] And here's another website [23] that reports that there are only 1,210 churches in the US with attendance at 2,000 or above, accomodating for less than half of one percent of all US worshipers. Please check facts before making statements as though they were fact.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your quoted article explicitly talks about "churchgoers". I'm still not convinced that there are 2000 people regularly attending services in this church *building*, or that there'd even be room for them. Having "a membership of over 2,000" means in my eyes that there are 2,000 people belonging to the church *community*, which makes a big difference - but of course, since all of that is completely unverifiable using online sources, we just can't say. --Amalthea (talk) 08:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just a thought... maybe you should assume good faith in the offline sources.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hmm? All I can try to do here is assume that there *are* offline sources since none are given in the article. I don't think I have implied that anybody is acting in bad faith here or in the article - I'm just very unhappy that the church membership bit, the only thing that has been brought forward to establish notability, is ambiguous and unsourced. --Amalthea (talk) 11:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Their summer program is notable (turned up on a quick scan of google news archive.) but what is really needed is a better article. It's clearly a large church. there must be notable aspects.Elan26 (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)Elan26[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. ——RyanLupin • (talk) 08:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fleur Beale[edit]

Mostly unsourced, can't find unvandalised or unneutral version in history. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, NZ Book Council site confirming awards, and here too, also this one, but I'm not 100% it's WP:RS, but it does cover off WP:V. Enough to pass notability per WP:CREATIVE. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Leonard^(Bloom) 01:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being unsourced is not a reason for deletion. I think she has significant critical attention with her nominations and awards, even if none of them seem to be major awards ([24] [25] [26]). Amalthea (talk) 02:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given the awards, and now their documentation, I Suggest a SNOW close. DGG (talk) 09:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being unsourced is not a reason for deletion and in this case the article was sourced but not with inline citations. I have converted the references and footnotes to inline citations. —Theo (Talk) 06:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - she'd meet the criteria for author notability. She would have sold more than 5,000 books. Her story I am not Esther is famous. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and delete nominator. He obviously has never read a book and should not be editing here. Manhattan Samurai (talk) 20:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:55, 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. PhilKnight (talk) 00:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Cowen[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. I found one news coverage about him, and this is his biography from his webpage (which seems to be down ATM, so those are links to the google cache).
The article itself doesn't even assert notability. Amalthea (talk) 00:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — No sources, and fails WP:MUSIC. Leonard^(Bloom) 01:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The claim that his song "Easy Love" received national air-play on the ABC Radio Network is at least based on the biography on his website. Not reliable, but if "airplay" is interpreted as "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network" then he might just be notable after all, according to Wikipedia:MUSIC. All other google sources I found for that claim seem to have copied the information from his biography page, judging by their respective choice of words. --Amalthea (talk) 01:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability per WP:MUSIC for lack of WP:RS. He'd pass under WP:MUSIC#C11 if we could find anything other than his own site that mentions the radio play. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:55, 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, no sources so verifiable material to merge. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rosanna Cox Fitzgerald[edit]

Absolutely no independent notability in the sense of having done anything, and there is no significant coverage in reliable sources either. Notability is not inherited; this person is not notable solely for being an ancestor of the Kennedy brothers. --Michael White^T·C 00:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There is nothing here but genealogical data. The notability of the Kennedy family does not extend indefinitely to all their ancestors. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Forebears of notable people are not themselves prima facie notable and there is nothing to add here which could make this otherwise. Plutonium27 (talk) 05:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to "Kennedy family" article as already suggested within the page. She may not be particularly significant but her origin may be added to their background. Dimadick (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect to Dog_training#Training_tricks Waggers (talk) 15:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skateboarding dog[edit]

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 13:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable and the references are weak. If this warrants an article then my cat should get one for attacking my fingers when I wiggle them at her. Sonuvafitch (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per my comment down the page. Sonuvafitch (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Skateboarding dogs are quite famous now and since there seem to be quite a few of them and they are something of an archetype now, we should have an article which covers them collectively. I have started cleaning up the article and it should be given a chance to develop from its current stubby start. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable subject, I see no reason to keep.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 23:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with dog tricks, as per the post made by Son at 01:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC).— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 06:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's notable on two levels. Since dogs don't instinctively choose to balanace themselves upon a rolling object, it's a difficult trick to train a dog for, and a favorite at dog shows; and, when there is film footage or videotape of a skateboarding dog, it often ends up on a news show as part of a "human interest" story. The four sources cited thus far are among many out there. Mandsford (talk) 01:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Firstly, of the sources listed in the article, only two of them are reliable. One of them is not covering it independent of the subject(dogs in the news(some site)), and the other is just a randomly uploaded video. The reason video sites like the one sourced in the article, or YouTube are not reliable is because videos can easily be edited. Secondly, the patience required for a task or the difficulty of a task does not make a task notable, at least, as per our policies regarding nobility. Whether or not it is a favorite at dog shows is irrelevant, as they are not independent of the subject. Thirdly, as per WP's inclusion policy, the news story has to be more then just a passing reference.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 09:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment There are many tricks that are difficult to teach a dog, should these have articles aswell?— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 05:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dog tricks seem quite a notable topic since there are many books on the subject. We only have a redirect for this at the moment. All you find at the end of this is Dog training#Training tricks which seems quite inadequate. I may expand my scope to develop the more general topic. Perhaps the skateboarding stuff could be merged into this. But deletion won't assist this process, either for the editor or for the reader, for whom skateboarding dog seems a natural search term. Note that the article had over 2000 hits in May and so there definitely is a readership for this. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please remember that page hits does not establish nobility.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 07:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobility? We have that too since they are featured in Lords of Dogtown which, by coincidence, is on TV here tonight. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you do not, as nobility is not inherited because of a passing reference.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 09:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, please note that to establish notability, the subject in question must receive significant coverage from independent sources outside of the subject, therefore, the fact that there are books on the subject is irrelevant.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 07:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We also need to keep in mind that just because something is covered by news outlets does not mean it warrants its own page. Look at multiple birth, almost all multiple births over quintuplet recieve coverage from news outlets, appearances on talk shows, and the like. This does not mean that each individual set of large multiple births deserve their own article. The same holds true for dog tricks. While skateboarding dogs are featured in 20 second segments on local news networks and films (the previously mentioned Lords of Dogtown) this does not mean they warrant their own article. Sonuvafitch (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of that one, I'm afraid. It would be a reflection of notability if a publisher came out with a book on the subject, particularly if this is in addition to other mentions of the subject in published works. Keep trying. Mandsford (talk) 12:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sort of ridiculous trivia that gets Wikipedia a bad name. Meanwhile, WP:NOT#NEWS etc. FatherJack92 (talk) 13:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems like a notable enough topic. I also would not object to a merge to "Dog tricks" or whatever. Northwestgnome (talk) 03:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could you please describe how it is notable? So far, the above arguments haven't held much water, I'd like to hear yours.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 06:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skateboarding dogs have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. And so, by our definition, they are presumed to be notable. Whether you or I think that skateboarding dogs are important or interesting is not relevant. What matters is whether others consider them worthy of notice.Colonel Warden (talk) 06:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, they have not, if they have, and I am wrong, please cite your sources.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 07:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Daedalus on this one, I'm willing to have my mind changed if I see some references on why this is important. Sonuvafitch (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Importance is irrelevant as notability is not determined by this. What matters is the appearance of the topic in some sources and we have an adequate number of those. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, notability is determined by such, please read our policy on such before participating and claiming such in AfDs. Secondly, as I have already proved above, you do not have significant coverage in order to prove notability, one of your sources is not independent of the subject, while another is just a video of a dog skateboarding, which does not assert notability, while a third is a news hub that you can only access by logging in, which means it is not verifiable(you have to be able to access the source no matter the circumstances). You do not have an adequate number of sources independent of the subject.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 00:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As small note, you must subscribe(for a fee) to the third news site, which is against policy if it is to be used as a source.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 00:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, poor word choice on my part, from now on I will only use "notability". Regardless of the number of sources, this topic is not one that should stand alone, as I mentioned in one of my previous statements, drawing parallels to multiple birth. Each large set of multiple births gets loads of media coverage - ranging from magazine articles in national magazines, to television coverage and talk show appearances (I'm actually friends with a set of quintuplets) - in much the same way that dogs such as Tyson (mentioned in the article) does. This being said, multiple births remain under the umbrella topic of multiple birth and tend not to recieve their own pages. There needs to be a certain amount of consistency on this site, otherwise we head down a rather slippery slope. Honestly we've already started, as Tyson the dog has his own page. Are we going to make pages for every dog that can skateboard now? what about other tricks that are difficult to perform, does each dog capable of performing those tricks deserve their own article? Also note, that while Tyson the dog has his own article, Toto - played by Terry the Dog (from the Wizard of Oz) does not. WP has incredibly difficult standards for bands and other personalities (actors, writers, etc), I don't see why dogs and tricks should have lower standards. This being said, up for review is skateboarding dog, which is a dog trick. As such, I will change my opinion and say that the topic should be merged with an article about dog tricks, but I'm not convinced that its notability warrants its own article. Sonuvafitch (talk) 01:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to dog tricks article, with redirect. Seems as notable as other feats included on comedy video-clip shows, like people falling of bikes or people dropping video cameras. Hilarious! I'm sure some of the cites are ok, but not enough to have an article by itself.Yobmod (talk) 12:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - Oh, i forgot babies-with-gas pulling faces - how can these not have articles?!
Delete/Merge to Dog tricks, converting the redirect into an article. Per WP:GNG, If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. External links are of the propety of the subject(or the subject`s owner), and per WP:NOBJ, Substantial coverage in reliable sources... only one in-line cite. That`s not substantial. --TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 18:59, 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.