< July 26	July 28 >

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

The result was close incomplete nomination. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Braun[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Some minor news coverage, but nothing that looks like this person has been the primary or major subject of non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 20:09, 27 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 clear vandalism. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 12:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Santanental breakfast[edit]

This article has no sources and the topic seems to be made up. Jalanpalmer (talk) 00:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hoax, as can be seen from the linked image of this alleged breakfast. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Joke article with a tendentious claim to humor (the linked image is an empty plate). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unfunny crap (as compared to funny crap which would still get deleted). JuJube (talk) 01:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as vandalism (hoax articles fall under this category). Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete made up, unfunny hoax. Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for lame and unfunny jokes. MadTV has that job covered pretty well. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 13:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very clearly a hoax, unfunny, why is this even a discussion? DELETE! spider1224 18:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I agree that it fails WP:NFT also it easily fails WP:V. All the Best, --Mifter (talk) 22:24, 28 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 Toronto Police Service. Since the content is well-sourced merging anything not already in the latter article is encouraged. Wizardman 22:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Reodica[edit]

This article about a teenager shot and killed by a Toronto police officer was prodded and unprodded in 2006. The incident and the results are discussed in Toronto Police Service. The individual is otherwise non-notable, so a redirect may be in order. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this discussion in the Toronto Police Service article in a section that this title could be redirected to as a plausible search term? -- saberwyn 00:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The inquest into this young man's death had repercussions far beyond the City of Toronto and their police service. Police services across Ontario, and even in other provinces, have also initiated programs related to the recommendations from the Coroner's Jury; they tend to be regarded here in Canada as "best practice". The recommendations included changes in the curriculum to the Ontario Police College, from which every police officer in Ontario must graduate prior to being assigned by their employer. I would not be averse to changing the title to Shooting of Jeffrey Reodica or something of that nature. In answer to Saberwyn's question, I'm inclined to think that that section in Toronto Police Services is likely to be pared down considerably as time goes on and it becomes less relatively important in the continuing history of the police service. Risker (talk) 00:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a memorial. However, this may be an exception given this Toronto Star source. There was indeed an inquest into his death. Artene50 (talk) 04:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Toronto Police Service. I believe that Jeffery Reodica easily falls under WP:BIO1E and that we should "cover the event, not the person". However, the event itself appears to be notable within the context of the Toronto Police Service. Within that article, all the important details of the event are covered: A shooting took place, an inquiry was held, recommendations were made, and they are being or have been implemented. This separate article offers no real additional notable information. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 12:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per ShinmaWa and WP:BLP1E - adequately covered in Toronto Police Service. JohnCD (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. A more clear example of WP:BLP1E there is not. Trusilver 21:25, 3 August 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Live in Montecarlo[edit]

1 concert. Not notable. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 23:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 23:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article is unnecessary and should be mentioned in the main article. – Jerry^teps 00:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Article misdescribes and miscategorizes itself. It was a concert special, not a tour. It should be more like Cher... Special. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:24, 30 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 Deleted notability is not really asserted. Some information may be relevant elsewhere but I do not think a formal merge is even necessary. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 04:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Private Tour[edit]

2 dates. Not notable. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 23:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 23:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. In fact not really a tour either. I would not oppose to merging this into Crazy 2K Tour of which these two dates on opposite sides of the world are really an extension of --T-rex 00:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Crazy 2K Tour as an 'Aftermath' section or something like that. It's not unusual for tours to have a few promotional shows before the start, or a few festival or promotional or other assorted shows after the tour proper ends. These are best dealt with in that tour article, rather than creating separate articles for these few other shows. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:24, 30 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of state terrorism by Russia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Article was originally kept when nominated about a year ago. However, community consensus towards "allegations" articles has dimmed quite a bit in the meantime. Article is a textbook example of WP:SYNTH; most other articles dealing with this kind of topic have been deleted or merged elsewhere. The Evil Spartan (talk) 23:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, precedent (apparently), and per my argument in other AFDs that any article just about "allegations" of whatever is a recipe for POV pushing and is a biased, unencyclopedic form of coverage. --Rividian (talk) 01:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First of all, WP:SYNTH means an original research, making a conclusion (A+B=>C) by a wikipedian. Please explain what is "A", "B" and "C" here. I do not see anything of that kind. This article is very well sourced. Second, why delete this article and keep other "allegation" articles, such as Allegations of state terrorism by the United States. You should be looking for a consensus to delete all "allegation" articles. If there is such consensus, that might be something reasonable.Biophys (talk) 01:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Well documented and a service to WP readers. Should be nominated for a GA article, not deleted. Hmains (talk) 02:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Claim that "community consensus towards "allegations" articles has dimmed quite a bit in the meantime. most other articles dealing with this kind of topic have been deleted or merged elsewhere" is false, as demonstrated by recent (April 2008) Keep result in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States. --Martintg (talk) 03:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I assumed he was referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination), which was more recent and seems to have seen that entire family of articles go away, without even a DRV. He should have linked to that AFD, but his claim wasn't false enough to justify a "speedy keep" (which doesn't apply anyway if there are other good faith delete arguments). --Rividian (talk) 12:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep well sourced, per past consensus. Claim that other articles have been deleted or merged seems inaccurate as shown by Marting. Ostap 04:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The word "state terror(ism)" occurs exactly one in this article outside of the lead. This article looks to be a dumping ground for every event that is remotely seen as connecting some arm of the Russian/Soviet government and some action that looks like terrorism. - Merzbow (talk) 04:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Each "action" in this article was described in sources as "terrorism" or "terror". If something was not, please tell what it is. The sources are cited. "Looks like" terrorism to whom?Biophys (talk) 13:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC) Not all sources identify the subject as "state terrorism". Then let's rename the article as Terrorism by Russia. Why not?Biophys (talk) 15:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy and precision are important. If the article is "allegations of state terrorism", the sources better darn well say state terrorism. Just saying some colonel Joe Blowski or some sub-agency did something are not the same as saying the state did that action. The same with "terrorism by Russia" - you need sources that say Russia did that something, not just that some general did it. - Merzbow (talk) 04:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Red terror was an officially stated policy of the Soviet Russia, including hostage-taking and other things (there was never anything like that in the US - so the comparison with US article is not helpful here). The Red Terror policy certainly qualifies as a "state terrorism" policy per certain sources like a book by Kautsky. The support of international terrorist organizations by the KGB might be classified as a "state-sponsored" terrorism. However, these terrorists were not just "sponsored", but directed and even ordered to do their job. These are not "allegations" but proven fact per sources. Only in contemporary Russia, these are mostly "allegations" although very credible ones, like the poisoning of Litvinenko (international nuclear terrorism) or blowing up the buildings in Moscow. At least, a US presidential candidate McCain called the latter allegation "credible".Biophys (talk) 05:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good sources and content. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This one and the entire series. If I could nominate a "Worst of wikipedia" this series of articles would be on it. They are little more than a device for POV pushers to pile on a load of WP:SYN and WP:OR all under the guise of consensus. Dman727 (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then could you please explain what exactly is unsourced (OR) or represent WP:SYN in this article? If something is not sourced, I would remove this immediately. But so far I do not see any A+B=>C type conclusions here except those made in cited sources.Biophys (talk) 17:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with Dman, all "allegations of state terrorism" articles are useful for nothing but pushing unsubstantiated conspiracy theories and rumors. They're all based on WP:SYN, and this one is no exception. Not encyclopedic content (we would never see an article like his on Britannica for example). Just a useful propaganda tool to push anti-national sentiment. Krawndawg (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've not seen any of those voting "delete" on the basis that all "Allegations of state terrorism by XXXX" articles should be deleted involved in the discussion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States. Their abstention in that discussion contributed to a "keep" result. If we are serious about deleting of all "Allegations of state terrorism by XXXX", let's refactor this debate to include all such articles and move it to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_Xxxxx. Martintg (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should look againr. I've put my 2 cents in on most of those votes (except for when I was away) Dman727 (talk) 05:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good sources and content.Mariah-Yulia (talk) 01:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well sourced article on a legitimate and well documented subject. I'd like to see more of the responses of the Russian and Soviet Governments to their critics, but this is a solveable content issue, not cause for deletion. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable topic and well-sourced article. This topic is not new, there are several similar articles: Allegations of state terrorism by the United States, Allegations of state terrorism by Iran. With everytning that's been happening in Russia, it surely warrants an article on the subject. --Hillock65 (talk) 04:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYN and WP:POINT. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 13:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hmains and Ostap. Notable topic, has sources. Edison (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the USSR and Russia have been accused of committing state terrorism by a wide variety of reliable sources over many years. We cannot say if those allegations are true, but because they exist and have been made by multiple, credible sources, we should keep this article. Biruitorul ^Talk 22:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - "Allegations" are wp:syn and wp:point, regardless of how well the article is sourced. This article (as the other "allegations of state terrorism") is not detailing the allegations. It is, in fact, making these allegations while cloaking it terms that attempt to make it Wikipedia-suitable. The subject of these allegations can be merged with more appropriate articles (i.e., The Great Purge) or be the subject of new articles (i.e. "Political assassinations committed by Russia"). Furthermore, "state terrorism" is not a concept that enjoys a widely-accepted definition, which begs the question how we may include an NPOV article on the subject. This article is totally unencyclopedic and is simply pushing one point of view. Wikipedia is not a resource to publish opinionated claims, although inclusion of this article in Wikipedia could demand a new-term: "tabloid encyclopedia". BWH76 (talk) 11:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You tell: "Wikipedia is not a resource to publish opinionated claims". Not so. If the claims are published in reliable sources and notable, they represent an encyclopedic content. Almost everything is someone's claim. But this article does not includes merely the claims. It includes a lot of factual information. If you do not like "allegations", let's remove this word and modify text accordingly. But that would be a matter of renaming, not deletion. An article that is based on published sources does not make anything. It summarizes published data. Any article in WP creates some content, simply because writing is a creative activity. This does not mean wp:syn by default. Biophys (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's go through this article section by section to see how it meets any of our criteria. If you'd like a summary, I'll tell you now: it doesn't. Please keep in mind that the article claims to be about allegations of "state terrorism" - to substantiate these claims, we need multiple sources. Particularly when it is a controversial claim utilizing a term that is not widely accepted.

Red terror - Who made the claim that this is state terrorism? Simply because it is called "terror" does not mean it is terrorism.
Internal Soviet terror - Where is the reference that terms this "state terror#?
Promotion of terrorist organizations - Where is it claimed that this is an instance of USSR-supported terrorism? More generally, where is the reference to support the idea that support of militant organizations (be they termed terrorist or not) is a case of "state terror"? Support of "terrorist" organizations does not necessarily mean "state terror".
Political assassinations - Where is it referenced that each individual act listed here is a case of "state terror"? The idea that assassinations are "state terror" is controversial to say the least; a minority view to be more accurate. Political assassinations do not fit into the generally defined (and generally accepted) definitions of "terrorism".
Preparations for terrorism... - Sorry, but alleged claims of "preparations for terrorism" are not terrorism.
Contemporary Russia - This is a clear example of a breach of NPOV. If you would like, I'll go into it further, though this seems obvious to me.
Allegations...Chechnya - One journalist makes a decidedly controversial claim and it is encyclopedic? No. Wikipedia is not a newspaper.
Alexander Litvinenko... - Where is the reference claiming that this is terrorism? Again, an (alleged) assassination is not defined "state terrorism" by any major organization except activist organizations - though none are sourced here.
1999 Russian apartment bombings - A total content fork. There is a main article on the subject; this here provides only one viewpoint.
Viktor Yushchenko... - Where are the references that claims this as terror? Again, see my comments on assassination.
Other cases - POV forks, conspiracy theories.
Introductory paragraph - it is just plain awful. "many ocassions," "human rights groups," "critics of the Russian government" - please. None of this is sourced.

The entire article is a giant ball of a non-neutral point of view, wp:syn, with a lot of wp:point mixed in for good measure. The allegations are not demonstrated here - they are made here. Once again, when we cover controversial topics, multiple sources are needed for each claim. These "allegations" are in fact "accusations"- and it has no place here on Wikipedia masquerading as a legitimate entry. BWH76 (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You got to be kidding me. There are plenty of references to "state terrorism" by Russia and the Soviet Union in the article, and even more to be found here: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Martintg (talk) 19:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not the case at all. You are using the phrase "state terror" and the concept of "state terrorism" interchangeably. This is neither correct nor is it accurate. Though there is a relationship between the two, they are not interchangeable. BWH76 (talk) 20:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Each of your specific points can be easily disputed. For example, one can easily provide references (e.g. a book on terrorism by Kautsky or even Encyclopedia Britannica) telling that terror=terrorism, or that poisoning of Litvinenko represents an act of "nuclear terrorism". Active "preparations" to the terrorism acts by the Soviet Union included actual planting of weapons on the foreign soil booby trapped with Molniya (explosive trap) devices. Several such devices have been disarmed in Europe as described in scholarly books. That has been described in scholarly sources as terrorism. And so on, and so on. But an AfD discussion is not a place to discuss all specific issues with the article. Such issues must be fixed rather than the entire article deleted.Biophys (talk) 22:02, 31 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Cigarette Machines[edit]

This is an advertisement, and it's not even thinly veiled. The only reason I don't prod this is that the subject itself may be worthy of inclusion. If so, I'd say something like Roll-Your-Own would be more suitable (even if that needs a big help, too). Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HI: Please let me know your suggestions- have mentioned (with backup) all electric machines I know of--- would like to make this page better rather than get it deleted. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobacco expert (talk • contribs) 02:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a welcome message on your talk page which has a bunch of information about policies, guidelines, etc. And while I hate to start swinging the policy hammer, I'd really recommend that you start reading some of the information. As written, this article is pretty much an advertisement for Fresh Choice Electric Cigarette System, and adding e-bay auction links only reinforces the advertisement. Wikipedia is not the place for advertising. Articles must be written in a neutral tone of voice, to avoid giving undue weight to any particular issue. As for what to do with the article, I would suggest deleting all text which is product specific, and discuss what an electric injector machine is, why they're different from manual injectors, legal issues (when is it a hobby or when is it a business), the whole concept of home-based stuffing, taxes, publications, and so on. Since I've used a manual injector, I'm personally biased to thinking that the subject is suitable, but that is one of the reasons I took this to AFD, to generate a wider discussion. Yngvarr (t) (c) 10:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SPAM Its written as a promotion for 'Fresh Choice Electric Cigarette System' among other things. Artene50 (talk) 03:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article Fails WP:SPAM and the article could probably be speedy deleted per CSD G11 as Blatant advertising. All the Best, --Mifter (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as written, the article is spam. -- Whpq (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the Chachapoyas[edit]

A bit of WP:OR for your reading pleasure. Okay as an essay, inappropriate as an encyclopedia article. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The discussion at Chachapoyas culture#Origin of the Chachapoyas—although it is, like this one, unsourced—seems sufficient and is certainly clearer and less OR-y. In the absence of sources, I don't see anything suitable for merging. Deor (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Original research. The only sources are forum posts found here and here. Chenzw Talk 11:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Opinion leadership. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Physician Champion[edit]

Probable copyvio. An SPA who can't even spell the title of the article correctly created three identical articles that read like they've been lifted from a medical paper. They include a "bibliography" - a sure sign of a copypaste from somewhere. A likely paper is the only reference given in the article. I can't log in to see the full paper but it bears all the hallmarks of a copyvio. andy (talk) 22:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also nominating the identical articles Physician Champions and Physcian Champions andy (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NOR rant. JFW | T@lk 23:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Opinion leadership. If this is not copyvio then it is OR. - Sgroupace (talk) 00:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It may in fact be OR after all - see here. andy (talk) 06:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Opinion leadership. The specific term is in use in the pharma industry, but the concept is identical. I'm sure some industry magazine would be happy to print a piece like this, but it's not for Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:02, 29 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. If someone wants to make a redirect then fine, with no sourced content I don't see a need. Wizardman 05:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Omen 6[edit]

Sorry, folks, it is not yet another sequel to that wonderful anti-Christ movie. This one is a bit of spam about a particular type of guitar. It is a great advertisement, but it doesn't belong here. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to manufacturers page. It's a product description that hasn't grown in 2 years.Filceolaire (talk) 22:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to manufacturer's page based on paucity of sourced content. Please don't use 'spam' in this context. Most likely this was written, as are most such pages, by nobody associated with the manufacturer or in any way making profit. Simply a fan or a collector. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It looks likes an advertisement. Forego (talk) 00:14, 30 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On Cloud Seven[edit]

A football fanzine, of no obvious notability outside its very small circle of readers. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable fanzine as demonstrated by lack of reliable sources. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 16:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure), as per WP:SCHOOL. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Olympia High School (New York)[edit]

~~Non-notable high school. The article offers no reason for its inclusion here.~~Nomination withdrawn Although I am not convinced that this particular school is notable, per se, I will abide by the consensus here regarding WP:SCHOOL and withdraw the nomination. My thanks for those who stopped by this discussion. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is a tremendous amount of precedent to keep high school articles--high schools are generally considered notable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Can I ask what is notable about this high school? Ecoleetage (talk) 23:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the same as for all--the effect on the community. Notable is a term of art at Wikipedia, and we can & should define it in such a way as to avoid as many afd debates as possible. DGG (talk) 04:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:SCHOOL has established a logical and useful precedent for dealing with the notability of high schools. Townlake (talk) 23:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - high schools of this size are notable --T-rex 00:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its a real secondary school and thus passes WP:SCHOOL. As the guidelines here say: 'In general, tertiary degree-awarding institutions and senior secondary schools are considered notable.' Artene50 (talk) 04:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), per WP:SNOW. - Toon⁰⁵ 23:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

High and Mighty (band)[edit]

Non-notable band; unreferenced, no claim to notability offered. Mikeblas (talk) 22:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable band that managed to get some of their stuff widely published --T-rex 00:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I was really quite surprised that this was nominated, they are by far a notable band. I really don't think this nomination should be taken seriously just because Mikeblas wants to delete the article. I can't access sales figures for Home Field Advantage from either SoundScan or RIAA, but this album definitely sold in the neighborhood of 10,000 or more. It was a pretty significant release when Rawkus was at its apex. Y'know, just look at the "what links here" page, and it's obvious that this group is worthy of wikipedia. Quit hating. JesseRafe (talk) 03:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:MUSIC#C2 for having a charting album and songs. And that's by just looking at the wikipedia content. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was also surprised to see this nominated, but the article is poorly sourced. There are reliable sources here, here, here, possibly here and certainly here, so it shouldn't be too much trouble for somebody to clearly establish notability in the article. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 05:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Cleanup The article is poorly sourced, but as said above, there are plenty of reliable sources about the article and with those sources the article passes WP:N and WP:BAND. All the Best, --Mifter (talk) 23:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking at my CD (remember those?!) of Home Field Advantage (album) it occurs to me that this article should actually be moved to The High and Mighty (band), should it survive the AfD. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 20:56, 29 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 Kept. Non-admin closure. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 21:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confused (song)[edit]

This article is about a non-notable song. _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 21:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per these notability guidelines, Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts...are probably notable. Per this search result, it IS notable as it charted back in 1992-1993. TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 22:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- While I disagree with that particular policy, it doesn't change the fact that it is standard practice. As such, the article should be kept intact. Trusilver 21:44, 3 August 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Olympia (Game Series)[edit]

Contested prod. Non-notable board game, possibly unreleased. As it it stands, still only sold in one shop. TN‑X-Man 21:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - spam article promoting NN game. I've also nominated two related articles for speedy deletion:

The Legend of Atlantis (game)

King Midas: The Golden Touch

andy (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Filceolaire (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN board game. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 22:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article shows this game is self-published, not released yet, and only going to be in one store. It's hard to get more non-notable than that. Edward321 (talk) 23:24, 29 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. Article could use cleanup though. Wizardman 22:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Braindead Soundmachine[edit]

I'm kinda sitting on the fence with this one. There's one album on Wax Trax! Records but not much else - thought I'd bring it here for discussion. Thanks sparkl_!sm ^hey! 21:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —sparkl_!sm ^hey! 21:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article seems amply-sourced and a good candidate for cleanup. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A Google search shows only 360 hits, most of them being the band's website, eBay selling the band's albums/singles, track listings, and blogs, these are not reliable sources. TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 22:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Based on gsearch, lack of reviews at metacritic, and no review or charting info at allmusic, I was going to !vote delete. However, this ref from the article shows that a novel has been written based on the band. As that would satisfy WP:BIO for an individual, I think it should satisfy WP:N for a band.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Agree with Fabrictramp above, regarding his/her interpretation of WP:N. At the same time, the article needs a bit of cleanup. Overall, worth keeping. Lazulilasher (talk) 23:31, 27 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 CSD G7. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC). Gwen Gale (talk) 22:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ivar Damian[edit]

At the present time, the subject does not seem to have sufficient external notice to ensure that it can be covered from a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources, without straying into original research, according to the notability guidelines for music-related topics and for general biographies. Most information in the article has not been verified by reliable published sources, and the third-party published sources used to verify some claims feature only stock promotional text, and do not demonstrate any intellectual independence from the subject. Dancter (talk) 21:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close The author has since requested the deletion of the article, and I have tagged the article for speedy deletion according to CSD G7. Dancter (talk) 22:05, 27 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 CSD request per G11 (advertising). Tawker (talk) 05:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Verhoeff[edit]

Gsearch isn't turning up notability; lots of blogs and press releases, but nothing solid. Gnews search coming up with a different person. WP:Autobiography and advert issues don't help. Contested prod by subject. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article is self-promotion, and the subject has no notability other than perhaps very local notability in a very small niche.--Michael White^T·C 22:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry Jan but this article doesn't show you as quite famous enough. Filceolaire (talk) 23:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete There are actually lots of hits on Google for Jan Verhoeff but they are mostly from blogs--not reliable sources. Note: This is an article by the creator on himself. Artene50 (talk) 03:55, 28 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hinguere[edit]

Contested prod. Non-notable game - only 10 non-WP hits on Google. Seems to have no existence outside a small group of Finnish students and their Facebook friends. andy (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:35, 24 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, Soxπed93^(blag) 20:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SPS. Game itself is not notable and lacks reliable third party sources. The website's existence makes the game look less like something made up by someone one day, but it only disguises the fact slightly. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:56, 28 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 This was a very tough AfD to close. The dispute seems to be on a rather base level about what our policy really constitutes as notable. Certainly I would encourage a discussion to evolve on what constitutes notability for minor leaguers. However, as the guidelines stand now, are they notable? That's the question presented, and the consensus seems to lean slightly. Jose Mijares I'm closing as keep since he's on the 40 man roster and several people pointed him out. After reading each comment, the consensus for the others that shows is one to delete. I can try and explain the close durther if needed, but it seems like everything that could be said has been said. Wizardman 05:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Myers Miracles players[edit]

Delete all. Here we are again with someone mass-creating articles for low-level minor league players. From a quick check, most of these players were low-round draft picks and most have yet to reach beyond the advanced A-level of the Minnesota Twins organization, the Fort Myers Miracle. Per countless other discussions, none of these players meet the notability guidelines that are usually agreed to when discussing baseball biographies. See WP:WPBB#Players. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple possible exceptions: Jose Mijares was created by a different author and has been to AAA, but was since demoted and is back in advanced A. Will Inman was created by a different author and has been to the AA-level in two non-Twins organizations. Kyle Waldrop and Matthew Fox (baseball) were both first-round draft picks and Waldrop, Oswaldo Sosa and Brian Dinkelman have all been to AA. If anyone finds anyone else that deserves special mention, make it clear here and we can either make sure they are clearly denoted or even removed from this AFD altogether. I was worried about an angry mob if I tried to do all of these AFDs separately when they are so closely related. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deolis Guerra played in the All-Star Futures Game. Spanneraol (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Parmelee was also a first round pick and a member of the USA Today All-USA high school baseball team.--E tac (talk) 04:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eli Tintor - someone beat me to that one. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Each individual player needs to be considered separately. Brandon Roberts for example meets the criteria in Wikiproject:Baseball of having been in a minor league all-star game. Nobody could possibly just give a blanket Keep or Delete on all these players. Kinston eagle (talk) 21:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, propose how you want it broken up then, please. If I break this up into 33 AFDs, my talk page will be burned down for sure. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that you do each one individually. I believe I've already said that. What you have at the moment is something unworkable - a number of players who are arguably notable (according to my post and the posts of others) and a number of players who are arguably not notable. Kinston eagle (talk) 00:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a place for people who start 33 nearly-identical AFDs simultaneously. It's called WP:ANI and I'm sure someone would make me explain it there if they had to cast 33 identical votes on 33 different pages. I fired up WP:AWB just to tag them all! Just do like Shapiros10 below and list out which ones you'd vote to delete and which you'd vote to keep. If folks agree with your division then I can cancel this and start up more than one batch - like one for folks who played in some A-level All-Star game and one for those that didn't. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all except for Jose Mijares Jose Mijares is on the 40-man roster for the Twins, and therefore notable. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 22:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all It is clear from the article about the Fort Myers Miracle that all 33 of these pages are about players on a single-A minor league baseball team that plays in the Florida State League. The proposal to consider each article separately only encourages people who want to the Johnny Spasms of the world who [mass produce articles] to see if it can be done. I don't even consider Jose Mijares to be notable until he appears in a major league game. Mandsford (talk) 00:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to all. Since they are all being lumped together, they collectively all fall under WP:BIO's criteria for athletes found HERE. By the nominators admission every one of these players plays or has played for the Fort Myers Miracle, a fully professional baseball team. The first criteria for an athletes notability is that they are "Competitors who have competed in a fully professional league". Do any of the people who are voting to delete doubt that each of these players is being payed to play baseball? Many have been given 5-7 figure signing bonuses to play when they signed. How can it be argued that they are not professional? Several players have it mentioned in their bios that they participated in the College World Series. The second prong of criteria for notability for an athlete is "Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports". The College World Series is the highest level of amateur baseball in the United States and the second highest in the world behind the Olympics. Many of the players have participated in minor league all-star games at various levels. One of the criteria for notability under Wikiproject:Baseball for players (found HERE) is that they have "been selected for any minor league baseball All-star game in the affiliated minor leagues". Many also meet another criteria: "notable Minor League Baseball award" by achieving Player/Pitcher of the Week/Month/Year honors. The only reason the people voting to delete are giving for deletion is that these individuals play for a low level minor league team. The affiliated minor leagues are all professional regardless of whether they are rookie level or triple A. They are payed to play baseball. Kinston eagle (talk) 01:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I disagree with the blanket minor league All-Star Game clause at WP:WPBB#Players and am curious where the discussion is located that led to its inclusion. Distinction should be made for A- vs. AAA-level All-Star Games. Surely countless people have played in A-level All-Star Games and never made the majors. Another note: there is nothing in the WP:WPBB#Players essay that mentions College World Series. Regardless, I would encourage Kinston Eagle to determine which of these players meet his All-Star Game or College World Series criteria as I'm not convinced he's even voting to keep the articles that don't fit those. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not necessary to determine which of players meet the All-Star Game or College World Series criteria since by your own admission they all play professional baseball. Professional athletes are notable by WP:BIO standards. It is also WP:BIO that states that "Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports" are notable which is why you did not find it at WP:WPBB#Players. Obviously, they are not going to list every single amateur athletic event that is considered "highest level". I contend that the College World Series is the highest level of amateur baseball in this country. Do you consider some other competition to be higher for amateurs? Kinston eagle (talk) 02:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would the Olympics be a higher amateur competition? In track and field, for example, just running in the national collegiate championships wouldn't be considered notable, but being in the Olympics would be. Just curious if you believe that standard would apply to baseball, too. It'll be interesting in a few years after baseball isn't a sport at the Olympics anymore... Metros (talk) 02:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I think we all know that those two little lines at WP:ATHLETE are ridiculously contentious and are almost never applied to baseball players. Hence why WP:WPBB#Players was assembled. Hell, WP:BIO in general has been changing rapidly since I came on the scene almost three years ago. It's nearly useless and is perpetually overridden. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So your reasoning for deletion isn't that they violate a particular wiki policy on notability, but that they don't agree with your own personal idea of what's notable or not? Your own opinion trumps criteria arrived at by thousands of people over several years? Your last post seems to imply that you agree with my interpretation of WP:BIO, but you think WP:BIO is shit. If that's the case, go to WP:BIO and try to sway the community to your line of thinking, but don't take out your disagreements on policy on articles that clearly conform to the established criteria. Kinston eagle (talk) 02:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What policy? WP:ATHLETE is a guideline. As such, it has been overridden by something more appropriate to baseball at WP:WPBB#Players. This has been done to death. Baseball-Reference bullpen is a great place to collect all of the folks who have never gotten higher than AA-level, but we have a notability standard here that has been upheld numerous times. Major leaguers only unless there is a high likelihood of future major league experience (like #1 draft picks and AAA All-Stars). —Wknight94 (talk) 02:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Moses for a related player bio which I thought distinct enough to nominate separately. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. I totally agree with the bundled nomination. Whilst these players may all be different, they are not of a level of sufficient notability in most cases, and in the others, they are pretty borderline, making a batched deletion of this chaff very appropriate, and unlikely to result in any real train wreck. Using Minor League Baseball as a reference is clearly insufficient and would tautologically seal the articles' fate. If anyone wants to name exceptions to this deletion, then let them speak now or forever hold thy peace. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creator's Opinion[edit]

I get the impression that people out there think I'm just some over zealous fan. Deolis Guerra was considered enough of a prospect by the Twins that they sought him from the Mets in the Johan Santana deal. That's not notable? Yet he is on your list.

This particular Miracle team captured its division title in the first half of the 2008 season, and set a franchise record in the process. Considering that the Minnesota Twins are respected universally for having one of the best-- if not, the best-- farm systems in baseball, the team that accomplished this feat is notable. Certainly, at very least, the all stars, first round picks and starting rotation deserve to have their entries kept.

I've read entries on other minor leaguers that were one sentence long. I did every one of the Miracle players more respect than that. I'm not saying that I did a perfect job, but I think that there are other articles out there that deserve to be on Wikipedia less.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 12:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per kingston eagle. These appear to all be professional athletes who meet WP:BIO guidelines. Nothing stated has refuted that. If you all can show that they are not professional athletes, I will be glad to revert to delete. JosephineBrooks (talk) 12:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note that this is the first edit by this user in over a year and less than 30th overall. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may not agree with Ms. Brooks, but I'll be the first to say that her argument is relevant, and that it makes no difference whether she's an infrequent editor. Mandsford (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nobody is disputing that they're professional athletes, although it's at the second lowest possible level of competition in the United States (Class "A" minor league, which is higher than a "rookie league"). One could read WP:BIO for athletes as meaning that one becomes inherently notable as soon as one cashes a paycheck written by a professional league of some sort. The "loophole" (ambiguous term) is that there is not a definition of "fully professional league". Some would say that it means a "major" league that is at the highest level of competition in the nation where it operates; others would say that it means anything that's not semi-pro or entirely amateur. That leaves it to a debate by the editors. If it's open to all athletes who have ever had a "play for pay" experience, then I can only say that that's a broader definition than what's accorded to elected officials. Mandsford (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all I started to go through it all one person at a time to see who was notable and who wasn't but of the first four names on the list, three of them had played in minor league all-star games, which is a criteria under WP:BASEBALL. Wknight94 says he disagrees with some of those guidelines and then cites others. Much debate and compromise went into those guidelines as I recall and the intention was to include the notable minor leaguers who had appeared in Minor League All-Star games. Some of the people on this list are definitely not notable and those should be listed separately. If listed as a group, they must all be kept. Spanneraol (talk) 14:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They must nothing. An admin is not obligated to delete them all or keep them all just because they're in one AFD. To your other point, as I said above, I'd like to see the debate you're referring to. It's unlikely that I agreed to the full rosters of every single-A All-Star Game having Wikipedia articles forever - but maybe I was drunk. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to systematically analyze all of these players is insane. If you absolutely MUST list them on AFD, then close this bulk nom (which is invalid, since the players under consideration aren't all equivalent), and add two or three a day until they're all done. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the consensus about minor-league All-Stars being notable came from Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports), with some discussion before that from Wikipedia talk:Notability (athletes). Notability (sports) didn't pass as a whole because the scope was too broad, but there was pretty widespread agreement about the baseball guidelines there. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion about adopting those guidelines for the project can be found here. Spanneraol (talk) 16:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to say it but that discussion appears to have lasted less than one hour and involved all of three people, two of which were clearly on one side of the issue before the conversation took place. No, I don't know where everyone else was at the time, but I think you'd get some different answers now. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) discussions lasted for much longer and involved many different people. Spanneraol (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, are we talking about Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Minor League Players and Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#AAA Baseball? Where you and the sock of a banned user (Jmfangio) were in agreement on one side while only two or three other people participated? Jaranda (talk · contribs) was starting to bend towards the current guidelines but he and his various socks seem to have disappeared as well. As I said, that guidelines really need to be revisited. If this AFD ends up in a huge deadlock as a few peo-keep people have predicted, I'll be happy to start that dialogue (time permitting of course). —Wknight94 (talk) 17:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the guidelines really need to be revisited then revisit them - there. AfD nominations are not the way to change guidelines you disagree with. Kinston eagle (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've already got five people here who seem pretty firm in their opposition, so let's ride this one out and see where it takes us. It may be a perfect start to discussion there. But yes, everyone watching here please be on the look out at WT:MLB for notability guideline discussions (or feel free to start them there yourself). —Wknight94 (talk) 17:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's mostly just you that is opposed to the guidelines... The other people who voted with you on here didn't seem to be aware of them. Spanneraol (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh, that plays right into my point, thank you. By and large, the only people voting to keep in this or my other recent AFDs have been citing this skewed biased guideline. The people that aren't aware of that guideline think for themselves and come to a "delete" conclusion. Very telling. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So if this were a mass AFD about all 30+ bands signed to a particular label (without regard for sales figures or Grammy nominations or whatnot), and none of the participants in the AFD were aware of (or interested in) WP:MUSIC, in your view that'd be a good thing? Or is it only a "skewed, biased guideline" because you personally happen to disagree with it? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) It's a skewed biased guideline because only two or three people were part of the discussion that formed it and they were already predisposed to one side of the issue. Pretty clear cut what will happen in that case. (I think I've already said this somewhere.) —Wknight94 (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that if you look at the links I provided, there are more than "two or three people" commenting. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep the following players as they clearly satisfy Wikipedia:WPBB#Players

Brandon Roberts, Rene Tosoni, Edward Ovalle, Steve Singleton, Daniel Lehmann, Matthew Williams, Spencer Steedley, Oswaldo Sosa, Blair Erickson, Cole Devries, Alex Burnett, Wilson Ramos, Brian Dinkelman, Robert Delaney, Danny Hernandez, Tyler Robertson, Deolis Guerra, Will Inman, Jose Mijares

Weak Delete the following, unless notability is established:

Danny Santiesteban, Carlos Gutierrez (baseball), Kyle Waldrop, Allan de San Miguel, Whit Robbins, Matthew Fox (baseball), Jose Lugo, Danny Berg, Yancarlos Ortiz, Johnny Woodard, Juan Portes, Chris Parmelee, Yangervis Solarte, ~~Will Inman~~

Not sure about:

~~Tyler Robertson, Deolis Guerra~~

If it's too much for the closing nom, then just KEEP ALL. This is a screwed up nom anyway that cites WP:WPBB#Players as the reason to delete, yet backtracks the second people point out that most of these players satisify at least one guideline there. SashaNein (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, someone actually managed to divide them up! Well done. Could have been done with a little with less venom but I guess that goes for all of your recent votes to my latest AFDs. Try to ease up a bit please - an ounce of honey and all that. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to clarify what Sasha is referring to, the specific guideline is that a minor league player is notable if they "Have... been selected for any minor league baseball All-star game in the affiliated minor leagues." which is true of Roberts, Tosoni, Ovalle, etc. Mass nominations are the only way to respond to mass creation of a shrine. When you set about to create 33 individual pages for the 33 guys on the roster of your favorite single-A league team, it's disruptive. Do you plan to create a new article every time someone takes the field? I'd say that the closing administrator should go with the breakdown outlined by Sasha, but I'm sure that we'll get a "no consensus, default to keep" decision. Mandsford (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guerra also played in the All-Star Futures Game. I would primarily agree with the breakdown that Sasha has proposed as far as which players are notable and which aren't. Keep Guerra too and I'm fine with that list. Spanneraol (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Players in class A are essentially in a training and development program for Major League Baseball. Many of them will be out of baseball in two or three years and will not be public figures. Thus, having biographies on players at such a low level raises serious BLP concerns (who will be tending these articles five years from now?) I think the appropriate approach is similar to what WP:BLP1E recommends--write an article about the team, maybe even an entire, well-documented article about their season, but not biographies for the individual players. BRMo (talk) 03:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And this, in turn, is why we do not hold that all class-A ballplayers are notable, but rather limit it to the players who make All-Star teams or set records, to distinguish themselves. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone have a list of everyone that has made A-level All-Star teams in the past? I'm curious to see if it would change my opinion at all. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All A-level teams, ever? That'd be a big honkin' list. You can find individual leagues' single-season lists on The Baseball Cube - for example, here's the list of Sally (South Atlantic) League All-Stars from 2000. For that season, 7 out of the 11 (Hamilton, Byrd, House, Ford, Calzado, Tsao, and Williams) eventually played in the majors. Here's the FSL list for the same year. 8 of 15 have made the majors so far (Hafner, Harang, Redding, Mench, Jodie, Snyder, Machado, and Lawrence), and several others are established AAA vets who might get a callup (or make an Olympic/WBC roster) in the future. I don't know whether those are particularly representative, but they pass my smell test as such. You can find further teams by navigating to the appropriate year and then picking your league from the drop-down menu. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that this is one of the reasons we accepted ASG appearances in the affiliated minors as evidence of notability - most of the guys who meet that benchmark end up as ML players a few years down the road anyway, and it's a bitch to try and recreate a decent section on their minor league experiences after the fact. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, it took me one try to shoot down this theory in my mind. Look at the Arizona League All-Stars from the same year: Alvin Colina played two games in the majors in 2006 ---- and that the sum total of major league experience from that list. No one else has done so much as play a full season at the AAA level. The MVP of the league that year is only now playing partial seasons at the AAA level. Several of them are out of baseball entirely now. Someone would need to convince me that that was an anomaly or I'm back at my original view that A-level anything counts zero towards notability. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Arizona Fall League is a bad example... thats an offseason league that is not a full league and contains more marginal prospects. Spanneraol (talk) 00:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And yet that's conveniently missing from the guideline. That thing is paper thin, isn't it. That's what happens when two people already on one side of an issue discuss guidelines by themselves. You really should have waited for dissenting opinions before blasting it into the project page that way. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good grief. The Arizona League (different from the AFL) is short-season ball for rookies. That's not a fully professional league - it's more like an orientation camp. They only play maybe 50 games. (And big surprise that most of those guys haven't made the majors yet... they were 17 or 18 in 2000, so they're only 25 or 26 now.) When we talk about A-level ball, we're talking about the following leagues: California, Carolina, Florida State, Midwest, and South Atlantic. And if you look at the teams for any of those leagues, you'll find that the majority of their All-Stars end up in the majors. And if you don't think this is articulated explicitly enough in the guideline, you were more than welcome to add your input when it was under discussion, at any time in the last three years. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three years? The discussion that led to WP:WPBB#Players appears to have lasted literally an hour and was put in place so fast that apparently few of us noticed. The number of people that have voted "Delete all" (or all but one) should be a clear indicator that the guideline was put in place far too hastily. And I'll be inviting everyone at all of my recent AFDs (on both sides - don't start shouting WP:CANVAS) to weigh in on a rewrite of that guideline. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you picked 2000, let's look at the record for actual A-ball All Stars that year. In addition to the SAL and FSL, which I already provided, here are the other A-ball leagues and the success rates of their All-Stars: California (8 of 13 - Rodriguez, Bloomquist, Thurston, Sledge, Ludwick, Torcato, Bynum, and Ramos). Carolina (only 4 of 13 - Figgins, Ellis, Snead, and Davis, plus Valenzuela playing on Mexico's national team during the WBC). Midwest (7 of 14 - Pujols, Santiago, Snelling, Lane, Kearns, Trujillo, and Bartosh, plus Martin playing in NPB (the Japanese Central League)). If you look at it for any other year, it'll be pretty much the same. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of which overlooks, of course, that if you're willing to go into back issues of Baseball America, you've got enough info to write a full, encyclopedic article about basically anyone who was ever considered a prospect. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You just contradicted yourself. You hinted that it was difficult to find information on prospects if you waited until after they became major leaguers. Now you're saying all you have to do is look up Baseball America. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I said that it's a bitch, not that it's impossible. You need a pretty comprehensive library, or one with an online database of periodicals, to find back issues of BA - not many institutions subscribe. And while a lot of the content is cross-ported to their website, much of it is subscriber-only content (and most things seem to vanish after about five years - the same amount of time it takes a high school prospect to reach the majors). You can do it, and do a good job of it, if you're willing to make a library visit - but being realistic, how many people here bother with that anymore? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out again that the original notability discussions lasted for a few months (not one hour) before a guidelines was drawn up at notability:sports... then we briefly discussed adopting it on the project page... and it wasn't till several hours after that discussion during which no one objected that they were added to the project guidelines. Spanneraol (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to go with Sasha's list, then please note that Inman participated in the Futures Game this year[7] and was a South Atlantic League All-Star in 2006[8]. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- let's not forget Jose Mijares is on the 40-man roster, and is set to be called up to the major leagues on September 1st, when rosters expand. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 15:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jose Mijares, delete rest - Minor league players may meet the letter of WP:ATHLETE, but I don't believe that feeder leagues can be treated as professional leagues, even if they are paid players. It's just a difference of interpretation. Mijares, however, should be kept as a member of a MLB 40 man roster. matt91486 (talk) 04:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It sounds as though minor league all-stars and award winners are being considered for articles because they are a good indicator that they may make the major leagues some day. Did anyone notice that that flies in the face of WP:NOTCRYSTAL and the last sentence of WP:NTEMP? Look what would happen if we continued that trend - as Hit bull, win steak (talk · contribs) already researched, around 50% of all A-level all-stars make it to the majors. But according to the guideline, everyone is within their rights to create articles for all of those players including the 40-50% that never made the majors. Quite a few of them not only never made the majors, they never even made it out of AA ball (I also checked this briefly last night and can provide a breakdown when I am nearer to that computer). So, project that out over the years and Wikipedia could potentially end up with hundreds of articles about players who excelled at the single-A level but were not good enough to get past AA - and, since notability is not temporary, none of them could be deleted! Is that really what people want here?! —Wknight94 (talk) 18:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is the appropriate place for this discussion. If we want to rehash the notability arguments, let's take it back to the project page.. We've all voted on this AFD already and under the current guidelines, I think Sasha's list should be what the closing admin goes with. Spanneraol (talk) 18:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, this was mostly in response to issues raised above, but it's gotten so jumbled up there that I jumped down here instead. But yes, I'll be re-raising this issue at WT:MLB soon. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you didn't want this to get sidetracked into a discussion about guidelines, you probably should've made a few individual nominations as I suggested earlier, rather than one big bulk one. With the way the issue was presented, how could the discussion here have gone any other way? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor league All-Stars receive a lot of coverage in their own right. I brought up the examples of minor league All-Stars becoming major leaguers in the hope that you'd find the notion of forcing people to re-create huge masses of encyclopedic content distasteful, and withdraw your objection. If that's not the case, then I'll be glad to fight the issue on its own merits. Even if a prospect "merely" reaches AA after becoming a minor-league All Star, he's often been the subject of significant media coverage for four or five years, starting with the moment when he was drafted. Profiles, interviews, scouting reports... all published by reputable and reliable sources. Even if you think it's stupid that so many people pay attention to minor league baseball, and write about it, WP:N and WP:V still apply. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I don't remember saying it's "stupid"... Anyway... I think this AFD - as jumbled as it is - has shown that the general community does not consider career minor league players to be notable. That's the key. I'm not talking about verifiability. The problem is that the sources are still not weighing enough to lead to notability. Maybe in-depth baseball magazines and web sites - and even MLB.com itself all report on a single-A all-star. Certainly local newspapers - all plenty reliable - are mentioning his name and writing long stories. But the general community here has still never heard of him and, when he is brought to AFD, if the general community says "What? Who? The lowest level of minor league baseball? No way." over and over, then the consensus has to be that single-A all-stars are non-notable. The community should be determining the project guideline, not the other way around. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So someone is only notable if the "general community" has heard of them? I don't recall that being in any guidelines. Lots of notable people the community has never heard of.. And I don't think you can take the "consensus" is that they are non-notable from a few people posting in this afd.. many people have posted on the "keep" side.. I don't see the consensus you mention. And "A" ball is NOT the "lowest level of minor league baseball"... rookie leagues are below them and various other instructional leagues. Spanneraol (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think happens at AFD? The "general community" decides if someone is notable. Sure I can use a project's guidelines to get my bearings but I can also choose to ignore those. See the first paragraph of the WP:CONSENSUS policy where consensus at a smaller scale (like a project I figure) cannot over-ride consensus on a wider scale. And I know, big difference on the rookie league vs. A-level - until you look at the guideline where no distinction is made. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "how many people have heard of it" standard is a terrible way to assess notability. How many people have heard of Samuel Dibble, or Daniel E. Somes, or Case Broderick? If there's widespread media coverage of someone throughout the course of their professional life, then they're notable - whether the random group of people on AFD one day happen to have heard of him or not. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use whatever term you'd like. The reality is that baseball stars are just that - baseball stars. They're famous. People pride themselves on knowing every guy that has merely stepped up to the plate for their favorite team. When I see a baseball AFD, I'm not expecting to have to look too hard to find some information on them. Google lights up with mentions as soon as they've hit the majors. If I have to dig into the "prospects" section of some years-old Baseball America magazine just to find their name on a single list of All-Stars and to prove that the person even played baseball, something is wrong. The notability line for baseball players has always been very clearly drawn - the major leagues. That's been the line in the real world and we're supposed to be reflecting what is in the real world. On the few specialized web sites where minor league stats are becoming available, like BaseballCube, there are still factual errors! In my scan through 2000 single-A all-stars, I found the 2000 Midwest League all-stars which includes a pitcher named Chris Dilullo. But you click on the Chris Dilullo link and you get that he played at the University of Delaware in 2007 and 2008. Huh?! How was he a 2000 single-A all-star but then in college in 2007 and 2008?! Baseball-reference's search shows no Chris Dilullo and its minor league section doesn't show all-stars apparently so I clicked on every team individually - no Chris Dilullo. So, suddenly, not only am I bothered by the notability of these players but I'm even questioning the reliability of the sources that are being used for them. Sorry if I have difficulty getting behind this idea given these odds. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Baseball Cube isn't a 100% reliable source. I linked to it because you asked for a list of minor league All-Stars across multiple years and seasons, and it's the best option online. I didn't think you'd probably react positively if I told you to go to a library and look at one of the various print annuals (published by BA, TSN, etc.), which are what I'd actually use if I were writing an article and needed sourcing on an All-Star appearance. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it does make that notability line hard to miss, doesn't it? Major leaguer: type the name into any search engine anywhere or grab a sports magazine off the shelf of your local convenient store. Minor leaguer: start making phone calls and hope you can find a library that carries a particular magazine within 100 miles - and then hope they also carry some sort of index for that magazine or else you're gonna be turning random pages for the afternoon. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most current minor leaguers you can also punch their name into a search engine and find information on them, people from the "pre-google" days require a bit more research but more and more of that info is becoming available online as well. Spanneraol (talk) 18:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found an error on the New York Mets' website. Your point?--Johnny Spasm (talk) 09:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hhmmm... Maybe I'm biased as the creator of these articles, but I had the opposite reaction to this spirited debate. I think this AFD-- as jumbled as it is-- has shown that enough people in the general community DO consider minor league players to be notable enough to keep their articles. If they were completely insignificant, and I was dead wrong to create them, the response would have overwelmingly shown that. It hasn't.

I would definitely call this a hung jury, and move for aquittal.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: For what it's worth, I also disagree with the concept that notability is not temporary. Stars rise and fall all the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny Spasm (talk • contribs) 21:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to what some people on this page believe, the FSL and Class A are, by far, NOT the lowest minor league level. In addition, there is no team in any pro baseball league called "Miracles". WE NEED PEOPLE WHO KNOW ABOUT BASEBALL TO BE COMMENTING ON THIS PAGE OTHER THAN MYSELF AND JOHNNY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.150.111 (talk) 03:33, 31 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 - not even an assertion of notability. Fritzpoll (talk) 00:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The national titanic research group[edit]

Article about a "research group" whose "owner" Christopher Marshall is , I guess, the author Titanicboss (talk · contribs). The web-site consists of a single page, which has links like "Forum" "About Us" and "Contact Us", but they don't work. The forum of the "Global Research and Scientific Analysis Organisation" is summed up at the bottom: "Our members have made a total of 158 posts. We have 27 registered members." Sorry, Christopher, this is not notable. JohnCD (talk) 20:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N, WP:COI, WP:OWN and WP:NOT#WEBSPACE. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 22:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — No evidence of notability. doña macy [talk] 00:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, article about a web page that doesn't assert the significance of the subject. Also I think there's a rule somewhere that all articles about the editor's own organization, where s/he fails to correctly capitalize the title of the article, are deleted instantly. <eleland/talkedits> 00:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per User:Doc Strange --T-rex 00:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. User:titanicboss has a history of edits on articles about White Star Line, RMS Titanic and RMS Olympic, all in the same capitalization-ignorant fashion, and these have had to be reverted. He claims to be the great great grandson of a man who was captain of the Titanic in 1925, which is remarkable for a ship that sank in 1912. This looks like unchecked vandalixm. Mandsford (talk) 00:40, 28 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Process equation[edit]

Two non-notable people (Kauffman and Sabelli) invented this term ten years ago for a recursive function that has an oscillating parameter. Since then, no one else anywhere in math, physics, or statistics has picked up on the term. The term therefore has no notability and generally the article is serving as a soapbox for one particular user's pet theories on Bios theory (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bios theory. Wikipedia is not a free webhost for marginal original research. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Kauffman is notable. This search or this one may say something about notability of Sabelli, and him being a pseudoscientist, as claimed by CH (talk - contributions) below. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 08:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't appreciate you saying Bios being my pet theory. Also, this is 'ad hominem' argument, and there is another logical fallacy you use, its name may be straw man, as you place into this article's discussion other deleted article which has little relevance to this? The topic of this article was cited in several books by other authors.[9] Lakinekaki (talk) 20:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other users should look in edit summaries of the history of this article written by ScienceApologist, and compare what he sais with the facts in regards to licensing of images, promotional language, and other relevant information. One example [10] about image licensing[11]Lakinekaki (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, your search just shows how parochial this term. Why not try this search and eke out how "notable" this topic is? Good luck! ScienceApologist (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

little more appropriate would be this search[12]Lakinekaki (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. And most of the links there are NOT to the Kauffman and Sabelli bollocks. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore I suggested disambiguation page. Lakinekaki (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, very nice choice of words: Bollocks. I had to look it up. Thank you, I learned a word, that I am going to use in the future when I refer to certain kind of people. Whom do I have in mind? Lakinekaki (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, as long as the content currently on the page is deleted due to lack of notability. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We actually have an essay WP:BOLLOCKS. - Eldereft (cont.) 02:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We also have an essay Don't be a dick Lakinekaki (talk) 06:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nominator neglected to mention that this terminology has also not gained traction with biologists or dynamic systems theorists. The primary meaning of process equation is, well, an equation which governs a physical process. This particular recursive relation may describe some systems (those figures are pretty generic), but the mapping of this name to this relation is not in common currency. - Eldereft (cont.) 02:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From Web of Science, none of their work on this has ever been cited by anyone except themselves. DGG (talk) 04:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect, I know of at least one paper citing them:

Human electroencephalograms seen as fractal time series: Mathematical analysis and visualization, V Kulish, A Sourin, O Sourina - Computers in Biology and Medicine, 2006

Web of science, includes science citation index and COMPUTERS IN BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE journal is indexed there, so your search from Web of Science was obviously not done properly, and you should not use '...i have an access to Web of Science...' line in further debates. Lakinekaki (talk) 06:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hi, all! As a former Wikipedian, I will offer an extended comment rather than a vote. I want to try to explain what I view as a hidden agenda on the part of User:Lakinekaki, creator of the article under discussion here.

IMO the ideas promoted in several WP articles by Lakinekaki fall within the pseudoscience genre I call "living universe"; authors writing in this genre include James Rose, James Lovelock, and Hector Sabelli.

The basic rules vios here are easily verified:

WP:COI vios: User:Lakinekaki is IRL Lazar Kovacevic (see this previous AfD debate for details), who is or was affiliated with the Chicago Center for Creative Development of Hector Sabelli, which in my view cannot be characterized as a legitimate scientific institute. Kovacevic has coauthored several papers on so-called "bios theory" with Sabelli, but he has consistently failed to disclose this close personal connection to the ideas he is writing about at WP (for example by pointing out the connection in the talk pages of his articles).

WP:FRINGE vios: Kovacevic has repeatedly tried to present Sabelli's "bios theory" as mainstream, but the only papers on this so-called "theory" are authored or coauthored by Sabelli, and they appear to have been cited only by the authors themselves. Kovacevic provided a link to a paper by Sabelli e-published at the Ceptual Institute (formerly Integrity/Ceptual Institute) of James Neil Rose (Minden, NV), but this is apparently yet another one-man "research institute" which discusses such topics as "Gaia, teleology, Cyber-cosmos, Diakosmesis, Cyberneomonasticism, Integrity Dynamics, Novelty". Rose states his position like this:

The Universe is sentient and whole at every level, in every act.
It is good science. It is good spiritual enlightenment.
It is good humanity.
— James Neil Rose

From this brief snippet it should already be clear that "Ceptual Institute" cannot be characterized as promoting mainstream science. Rose earned an undergraduate degree in biology (1969) and worked as a art dealer and coin dealer; he is not a scientist.

Hector C. Sabelli is a psychiatrist by training, not a scientist. His coauthor Lazar Kovacevic is an electrical engineer by training; his other coauthor, Louis H. Kauffman, is a mathematician (more later on that!). Sabelli has written some more or less mainstream stuff in his own field, and has also written at least two fringe books on his so-called "bios theory".

In "Bios Theory of Creative Evolution", Sabelli summarizes his basic idea like this:

Bios is a theory regarding the natural creation of complexity from simple elementary forms. Fundamental physical, biological and human processes are autodynamic and creative, rather than determined or aleatory; they causally generate diversity, novelty, and complexity. This is bios.
... Bios is also found in the series of prime numbers, indicating that bios is a fundamental mathematical process. Mathematical recursions show that biotic patterns are generated by the recursion (action) of bipolar and bidimensional oppositions (e.g. sinusoidal waveforms) and conservation. In nature, bios may be generated by the interaction of similar and universal processes: (1) action, the flow of energy in time; (2) the rotation of harmonic opposites; (3) the conservation of stable structures. At the physical level, they are exemplified by physical action (Planck's quantum) and unipolar gravity, bipolar electromagnetic force and the tripolar nuclear forces that generate stable material structures. These factors appear to be necessary and sufficient to generate life-like (biotic) patterns. These forms reoccur in a homologous fashion within and between the multiple levels of organization they contribute to create. ... While current discourse on complexity stress random change and puts forward the emergence of order out of chaos, mathematical recursions show that order deterministically generates chaos, and the diffusion of chaos generates bios. Biological evolution is a creative development in which (1) causal actions (not just random mutations) generate biological variation; (2) bipolar feedback (synergy and antagonism, not only Darwinian struggle and competition) generates information (diversification, novelty and complexity); (3) connections (of molecules, genes, species) construct systems in which simple processes have priority for survival but complex processes acquire supremacy.

— Hector Sabelli

In other words, Sabelli et al. claim that natural selection is dominated by a murky alleged "creative principle" they call "bios", an alleged tendency toward complexity. This could be called a neo-Chardinian/Lamarckian notion, with the twist that Sabelli claims (quite incorrectly) that his principle is founded in modern nonlinear dynamical systems theory. Thus for example in addition to his Chicago Center, it seems that Sabelli is also associated with a Society for Chaos Theory in Psychology and Life Sciences and a Bios Group. Sabelli and Kovacevic claim in another paper that the distribution of galaxies is also determined by this alleged "bios principle", and they appear to suggest that "bios theory" might offer a cure for various psychiatric conditions. (Psychoceramics not included?)

I think it is obvious from these excerpts why the few mathematicians/biologists/physicists who have heard of "bios theory" consider it classic pseudoscience, chockfull of ecletic terminology (e.g. according to Sabelli, gravity is "unipolar", electromagnetism is "bipolar", and "nuclear forces" are "tripolar") and impressive buzzwords hijacked from a real theory (nonlinear dynamical systems). But here things take a highly technical turn, and unfortunately, as Kovacevic appears to concede in a policy page discussion at wikimedia.org, non-mathematicians will probably have to take the word of the WikiProject Mathematics members here for the following:

Louis H. Kauffman is a distinguished mathematician, best known for introducing the bracket polynomial which is one step on the easiest path to defining the HOMFLY polynomial in knot theory, and which Kauffman used to establish an intriguing connection between statistical mechanics and knot theory. Since I have often written about this topic enthusiastically in the past (e.g. old UseNet postings written long before Wikipedia even existed!), it should be clear that my enjoyment of Kauffman's earlier work is unfeigned. Nonetheless, I have the impression that Kauffman has long had a reputation for generating some pretty odd ideas, and IMO his work with Sabelli can at best be located on the borderline between fringe and cranky. (One might recall such precedents as Isaac Newton for the proposition that even mathematicians can have some rather odd ideas!) This circumstance presents special WP:BLP problems; Wikipedia's track record in preventing bios of (arguably) "notable fringe figures" from becoming slanted toward wikiwoo has not been good. For what it's worth, my experience from 2006 suggests that the best approach is to keep such wikbios very short--- and protected. To avoid misleading readers, one must very briefly mention both mainstream accomplishments (bracket polynomial) and fringe claims (bios theory), and leave it at that. Protection is neccessary to avoid endless and ultimately pointless content disputes with User:Lakinekaki, spamming of very long C.V.s, and so forth.

I am sure it will be obvious to mathematicians with a knowledge of nonlinear dynamical systems (since I once wrote a diss on a topic in dynamical systems, I hope I can include myself in this group!), from what has already been said here, that Sabelli et al. are incorrect in claiming that nonlinear dynamical systems theory (real math) supports "bios theory" (pseudomath). Pseudomathematics is unfortunately a genuine and growing phenomenon, which often seems motivated by extrascientific agendas clustered around creationism/deism: I recall for example widely promoted claims that ergodic theory (real math) supports Dembski's "irreducible complexity" (pseudomath), or that statistics (real math) supports "bible codes" (pseudomath).

WP:COAT vios: In particular, this audience will recognize the origins of the so-called "process equation" in the circle map (real math) discussed by V. I. Arnold in connection with the phenomenon of Arnold tongues (real math), and this audience will immediately recognize the dynamical systems terms which are misused by Sabelli to (unintentional) comic effect. (To be fair, I point out one exception: Sabelli is using homology in the biological sense, not the mathematical sense!) Several pages at the website of the Chicago Center for Creative Development strongly suggest an extrascientific motivation for "bios theory":

Biotic development illustrates how evolution may be expected to continue creating an attractor of infinite complexity rather than tending to equilibrium. This provides a mathematical metaphor for God compatible with contemporary science and with mental health principles...process theory regards philosophizing about God as sacred art.
— creativebios.com

Note that Sabelli himself has also edited Asymmetry, adding a citation to his book on "bios theory" and a description of his views. At the present time, that article is sorely unbalanced; in particular, it lacks such obligatory mainstream citations as the seminal book by Hermann Weyl.

I'd like to end my extended comment by urging any mathematically literate students who don't yet know much about nonlinear dynamical systems to read some very enjoyable undergraduate level books which offer a fine overview of this wonderful subject (including Arnold tongues, time series, and many other wonderful things which are dreadfully abused by Sabelli et al.):

E. Atlee Jackson, Perspectives of Nonlinear Dynamics, two volumes, Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Robert C. Hilborn, Chaos and Nonlinear Dynamics, Oxford Univesity Press, 1994.

Enjoy! ---CH (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just few small additions to CH's impressive analysis.

First, Sabelli's CV shows that he is an obvious pseudo scientist.

Second, I came to Chicago after bios theory related stuff was published (I contributed later with programming skills and analysis of various time series).

Third, I tried to create an article about bios two times as anonymous user. I tried to do it when I just got to know about bios, and I liked idea, and didn't find anything about it on Wikipedia. This happened before I got involved into it and have co-authored papers. Articles got deleted immediately. You may have not know this, but users do get exited when they find a topic missing in wikipedia that they think they can contribute to. And they do get emotional when others try to delete it. Probably every other article that I started was nominated for deletion, and here are few of those: Ko to tamo peva, Asymmetry, Diamond of opposites, Intermittency, The Real Dirt on Farmer John, Angelic Organics, Miroslav Lazanski, Process equation, Hormonal meat. Actually, that's more than half of those I started -- since I have an account here. I don't even know what I started and what was deleted while I was an anonymous user. So in light of this experience with deletionism I had to fight with, you may be able to understand little more why I try to be very persistent about my edits -- that others don't provide good arguments against, including edits related to bios.

However, I knew little about WP policies and citations. Once I learned more, and had personal experience with 'academia' stuff, I created bios article again -- under my current username, as anonymous users couldn't create articles any more. This time, article had references, and stayed there for over 6 months, until CH started in paranoiac way to solicit wikipedia editors (similar to what he is doing now-- look at the comments further below) on their talk pages to delete the article. Furthermore, WP:Notability policy changed a little in those 6 months, and had slightly stricter rules for article inclusion -- secondary source review was being debated.

Also, the intensity of my edits should not be only connected with my involvement with bios, but with the way I edit articles in general. For example, you can see recent Solar cycle talk page -- I know very little about the field, but am being persistent as other editors are showing a bias, IMHO, against ideas they don't personally like, and start doing a serious WP:OR for those edits (above CH analysis is a prime example of a wikipedia editor doing WP:OR), while never try anything similar for the ones they like.

Finally, why I don't publish my personal info in bold all over my userpage is a matter of personal philosophy. I prefer anonymity, both by me and by others. I like ideas. I care about ideas. I don't care about who sais them. I think that credentials should not be used in Wikipedia discussions, but only arguments, and if you cannot have an argument, but have to hide behind your title, than maybe you should not discuss topics. And I don't really understand why people raised such a fuss about Essjay guy. Its peoples fault they paid attention to his credentials instead of his arguments and references he was providing. So that's another argument for anonymity and not credentials.

Edit: I see now Essjay was 'salaried Wikia employee', so I guess it does deserve a fuss.

Lakinekaki (talk) 20:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another important thing, how does most of above analysis by you, CH, relate to 'process equation' article? Quite a straw man argument you are building. It distracted even me from noticing it, although I am easily distracted. Lakinekaki (talk) 21:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another reply to new ridiculous Asymmetry accusations[13]: the page as I created and last edited by me (except a minor edit since) looked like this, and since than it changed significantly and looks now like this. As you can see, neither what I placed there justifies your paranoia, nor did I complain about page improvements done by other editors since. I created an article about Asymmetry which I thought was a notable subject, and article remained after I put enough content. My mission there was accomplished, as now people can find some info about asymmetry. So what exactly did I do wrong there? I would really appreciate that 'scientific skeptical' editors like you stop stalking my edits, and stop harassing me and accusing me of nonsense. Lakinekaki (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if I started analyzing your edit history (which I think you asked to be deleted), I could find a lots of far fetched conspiracy links between your area of graduate studies and current work, and your edits. Do you edit articles in Wikipedia you know something about? Shame on you if you do! @$#%*!~< Lakinekaki (talk) 22:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another one!?! CH, you are becoming amusing and sad. Intermittency started by me is now also a suspect? Lakinekaki (talk) 02:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bios theory may not be Lakinekaki's pet theory, but it's certainly somebody's pet theory, and should be removed from Wikipedia until a credible scientist recognizes it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bios theory was removed. This page is about Process equation.Lakinekaki (talk) 02:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. The lead, and, unless someone can demonstrate otherwise, the concept, only makes sense if the concept of Bios theory exists. The article was removed because the concept doesn't exist. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For a four time winner of Putnam prize, your deductive reasoning is quite faulty. First, non existence of article about bios theory doesn't imply non existence of the concept of bios outside of wikipedia. Second, even if the concept is total nonsense, that does not mean it does not exist. Third, concept of bios theory is much wider than topic of process equation, and actually first depends on later, not the opposite. 2 statements, 3 fallacies. You can do better. Lakinekaki (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the arguments presented in for the deletion of bios theory pretty much demonstrated that the concept was non-notable, misleading, and possibly totally bogus. In the absence of bios theory being at least a notable fringe theory, this article would fail as ((db-context)).

In your own WP:OR it may be, but however if you had bothered to read references, you would see bios is defined in those articles. Lakinekaki (talk) 20:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing any references to this except from the same few people. I just don't think this is notable. Cardamon (talk) 10:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close The nominator was in a revert war with Lakinekaki on this article for some time. First, [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]. The nom then got in a revert war with that user over redirecting it: [21] [22] [23]. AfD is not a means of winning a content dispute. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. The nominator thinks that this content has no place on Wikipedia, but that the article could be a redirect or disambiguation between possibly related terms. Nothing inconsistent there. If necessary, I'd sign the deletion reasons in his place, but this actually borders on a speedy delete as WP:BOLLOCKS. The sentences make sense, but the paragraphs do not. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first group of diffs look like a content dispute that wasn't a redirect or disambiguation. Why make changes to the content if it's not worth keeping in the first place? JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 01:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So people aren't allowed to make mistakes? The fact is, I've only a vague familiarity with pattern mathematics and chaotic systems. The definition of a "process equation" is unremarkable and I hadn't researched it well enough to know whether it was actually a name that was used in the literature or not. What I was trying to remove was the obvious soapboxing for Sabelli. Later, I did some research as to the actual equation and found that nobody-but-nobody refers to such an equation as a "process equation". Thus, I asked for the article to be deleted. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google Scholar shows almost no citations for the Kauffman and Sabelli papers on this equation by anyone other them and their collaborators, suggesting (as Eldereft has noted above) that this term for this particular equation hasn't become scientifically notable. Scog (talk) 12:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. --Crusio (talk) 12:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak Delete After searching, nothing found on this topic or people in The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science. As far as I can tell it's not notable even among science and religion scholars. I'm quite open to religion and science topics and I believe wikipedia is too. But such articles need to be more up front about who and what they are. Also even most members of the religion and science community are totally turned off by intelligent design and as a whole only luke-warm towards process philosophy/process theology. If process equation is something like process physics, then I'm not sure what it's notability status is. the deleted article process physics is still something I have yet to come across amongst any science and religion scholars and I read their works voraciously. --Firefly322 (talk) 16:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Eldereft, DGG, above. Lack of notability outside of its own echo-chamber. Verbal chat 16:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete no evidence of notable impact on scientific thinking independent of authors. Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- total gibberish. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From Lakinekaki's older version of userpage:

Excerpt:

WP:N A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other. ... The "multiple" qualification is intentionally not specific as to number, except that it be more than one. ... multiplicity of works ... is one researcher or journalist writing and publishing a series of different articles on a single subject. One rationale for this criterion is that the fact that people independent of a subject have noted that subject in depth (by creating multiple non-trivial published works about it) demonstrates that it is notable.

Note that policies evolve, and in my opinion this represents a 'minimal' threshold of notability for inclusion, which can become higher in the future by requiring in depth review by the secondary source.

Update: indeed, above policy definition from the time of bios deletion does now include requirement for secondary source review.

End of excerpt.

I can also see that 'Process equation' was created after the deletion of 'Bios theory' page. In light of this, this article may have had passed WP:N criteria in the past, but criteria changed, and now it requires in depth review by the secondary source, which was not provided -- only citations were provided. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 23:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The above IP is quite likely to be Lakinekaki (talk · contribs). Verbal chat 06:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is not relevant that the people who introduced the concept are not (otherwise?) notable. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:14, 31 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow party (sexuality)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Is this real? Talk page shows doubt, unreferenced. MAYBE an mention on teen sexuality. (Entire Category:Sexual urban legends articles should go away.) Wholly non-notable... "featured" on single Oprah Winfrey episode only.

Side note: Recommended solution, merge Rainbow party (sexuality), Donkey punch, Penis captivus, Progesterex, Sex party, Toothing, and Vagina dentata
into single article, Sexual urban legends (and delete Category:Sexual urban legends)

Also: First AfD was canceled due to nom, not due to discussion.

Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime ♥ 20:02, 27 Jul 2008 (UTC)

Keep. I'm afraid I really don't understand the nominator's reasons here: there are multiple sources demonstrating that this isn't restricted to Oprah: to quote Alansohn from the previous AfD, "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." I'm not totally against a merge, but I don't really understand the nominator's reasons for that either.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep per the Hound of Ulster —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filceolaire (talk • contribs) 23:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question- Am I remembering correctly that this was mentioned in an episode of CSI? If so, that would seem to indicate some kind of notability. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With respect to the previous discussion, it was very clearly headed for a keep in comments not based on the nominator--and just a single week ago. The renomination now seems a little unusual. DGG (talk) 04:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Of course it may be an urban legend. But urban legends, as such, may also be notable. This one has been covered in nationally distributed, reputable newspapers as well as a major television program (and more, as a brief search of sex Google Books and Google News Archive indicates). Nominator seems to be misunderstanding that doubt about reality is something in the reliable sources. --Dhartung | Talk 04:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The hoax itself is a quintessential morality panic, among the most notable ones. Also, the AfD we just had on this a week ago was not only closed by valid process, but had the vast majority of people !voting 'keep'. --Alynna (talk) 10:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to meet notability and simply needs improving. Banjeboi 00:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To repeat myself from the previous nomination: "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) 16:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To start off with, yes Umbralcorax, this WAS in an episode of CSI, a fact which Cúchullain continually denies should be in the article. So if that does enhance its notability, Cúchullain is hurting its notability while claiming it has some. The book itself is a fictional work that indicates that Rainbow Parties are hoaxes. Is there notability? Yes. But this article is insufficient and never will be so on its own, hence my original recommendation at a merge. That we have five or six stubs on tightly-related articles is detrimental to all of them. Put them together and make one decent-sized, well-organized, heavily-sourced article. One article in NYT is hardly enough to assert notability; many pages have been deleted with as much referencing or more. (Granted, maybe I-Don't-Like-It deletions.) Oprah is the only real notability-maker, because anything out of her mouth is media gospel. No, this article will never be well-sourced (two sources? for real?) and should not stand on its own, where it fails.

Finally, as Cúchullain and Alansohn rightly point out, the NYT article was about the book. Then so should this article be about the book. A book in itself has more stand-alone notability. Change this article about the book and merge the non-book content (such as Umbralcorax's CSI observation, which was referenced) to a combined Sexual urban legends article, merging from Rainbow party (sexuality), Donkey punch, Penis captivus, Progesterex, Sex party, Toothing, and Vagina dentata. Then delete Category:Sexual urban legends. That has been my position from the start, as shown above. Let me say it again...

MERGE it into a single, coherant, quality article.

The logic is so plain I cannot understand how it escapes anyone.

Now that you've made me break my usual softspoken, user-of-few-words persona,

I'm going to go back to being simpleminded.

Apologies for the tirade; won't happen again.

Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime ♥ 18:44, 29 Jul 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to say the NYT article is only about the book, it clearly discusses the rumors about the parties (the title is even "Are These Parties for Real?" That, plus the Oprah episode, are more than enough to establish notability (as I said on the talk page the appearance on the CSI episode is just trivia, unless the whole episode was about it). There really is no case for deletion here.

As for merging, most of those articles are unrelated by anything other than the fact they are sexual, there's no call to slap them together. I could see merging it with sex party but not the others.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and don't merge with those other articles. Even if they are all sexual urban legends nevertheless they are different urban legends from different places. the fact that they are all sexual is not enough to combine them though a list or category to link them together is appropriate.Filceolaire (talk) 22:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A reasonable short article with enough independent references to establish notability. — brighterorange (talk) 01:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just took a glance at the article, and found out that New York Times had once reported it. And as urban legends and Internet topic cultures are covered on mainstream news media, they're absolutely notable. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC) 15:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC) fixed[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. Wizardman 13:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Churumuri (blog)[edit]

Most of the references are from the blog itself. Pray tell how does this blog pass the notability test? some more references are referencing stories mentioned on the blog, not referencing the blog itself. yet other references are about the contributors to the blog.

Is notability inherited by the famousness of the author/contributors? (if you can indeed call them famous)

Only two credible references refer to the blog, one in the context of the traffic it generated and the other when The Hindu responded to some question raised by the blog...

I'm curious to see, how do other wikipedia editors see the status of this entry.

I was tempted to log-out, before I AfD'd this article as Indian Journalists are a sharp tongued lot. but what the heck... <flamesuit on> ChiragPatnaik (talk) 19:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If stories on this blog and the blog contributors have been mentioned by others then this is evidence of notability. If you feel details of the blog would more appropriately appear in the Authors wikipage then a merge is more appropriate. Filceolaire (talk) 23:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't for even a minute doubt that it is an excellent blog. I and many others frequent it quite often. Should it be here, is what I'm asking ChiragPatnaik (talk) 03:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It has nothing to do with "famousness". Journalists arent exactly rock stars. Its about 'notability'. Both the owner/author of the blog and the blog itself are "notable". The blog is owned by Krishna Prasad, a former editor of a major newspaper (until the world's largest English daily bought it and shut it down) and a distinguished journalist who has worked at many major news organisations. If not for anything else, he's comfortably notable for wikipedia's purposes as one of the journalists who exposed Indian cricket's match-fixing scandal.

Now the blog. Apart from the fact that it is owned by a notable journalist, sound 'bytes' from the blog also feature fairly regularly in the reportage and op-eds run by many of other major news houses including CNN-IBN... particularly when they are covering Karnataka affairs. That is enough indication of its notability for wikipedia's purposes.

Now, if you have concerns about the sourcing, that is an entirely different matter. If I'm right, the article has changed more than a fair bit since I authored it several months ago. Nevertheless, sourcing may very well need clean up, but we dont need an AfD for that. Feel free to slap appropriate tags on it if you will and I'm sure somebody will eventually get to it. Sarvagnya 16:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looking at the references, I think this one can pass WP:N, though the "Notability" section in the article could be renamed. IceUnshattered (talk) 18:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

most of the references are from the blog itself. Other refs are about something the blog covered. two links don't point to anything relevant. Sydney Morning herald blog is not about Churumuri, but the cricket controversy. New Indian express mentions churumuri, but in the passing. the NYT story is not about the blog. It refers to Krishna Prasad as "brightest young journalists". Is notabilty of the blog inherited from the owner of blog? ChiragPatnaik (talk) 18:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a non-notable blog by a non-notable author. The idea that Krishna Prasad is notable due to a former job as an editor is absurd. Furthermore even if the author is notable to claim that the blog then is is based on that merit is counter to WP:INHERITED (Blogmaverick?)--T-rex 00:20, 4 August 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Esa Masi[edit]

Another poorly-written and original research-based article about an unsourced religion that comes up empty on Google searches, similar to Esai and Brhmoism. Beemer69 ^chitchat 19:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can believe there are myths and stories of Jesus visiting India and an article could be written about these however this is not it. References that lead to Google searches aren't good enough - the author need to go through those google hits and find the one that supports his claims. Filceolaire (talk) 23:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is difference between ‘claim’ and ‘notability’ . as ‘Myths to ‘Reality’ . Such matter should not be debated or deleted but posted on wiki as who said what ? Nobody has seen the past how or why old Bible converted into New Bible? My case an stakes of Brhmoism , Esa Masi , Esa seeks Wikipedia-Arbitrary intervention urgently. For instance….. Mythology , Superstitions , Blind Faith , Fictions , Philosophy , Religions , Spiritualism , Consciousness are awkward or illogical claims to get Registered/Notifications/ References . Yet wikipedia has such topics otherwise which wikipedia / encyclopedia media caretakers paparazzi has noticed Buddha getting enlighten under Banyan tree , however Krishna orating Gita discourses to Arjun during crucial hours of busy bleeding war , or Jesus doing miracles or issuing commandments. In those days there were no internet , media or paparazzi to register, record claims references or sources and yet their claims are recorded in wiki. Naresh Sonee or Brhmoism is not a superstitious, blind faith institute. Various news papers had proved his factual existence through news and reviews. Even internet search throw many hits on him and Brhmaand Pujan. What else this debate needs? Just fight like means school boys only to prove the existence of such ‘able voice’ wrong? Should not such crab fight end in wikipedia to claim me wrong and concentrate to read then realize what is the ‘ intention or purpose’ of Brhmoism . Should only professionally managed trust who profit under the name of some religion be posted on wikipedia either Asaram , Murari Bapu , Deepak Chopra. I leave this matter to the expert senses of Wikipedia-Arbitrator. Regards--Dralansun (talk) 18:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete OR and POV. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 11:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just the Hindi word for Jesus, an article already exists.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's Isa not "Esa". The article on Isa already exists: Isa (name). 202.54.176.51 (talk) 03:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is a mix of unsourced claims, original research, and self-promotion of Brhmoism. Edward321 (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The'Galin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The'Galin

Aside from being a mishmash of totally incorrect information. A fact I am quite aware of as I am the Storyline developer who designed the character of The`Galin. I seriously question that there is enough demand to validate a page dedicated to this specific Character in the ArtixEntertainment cannon. At best it is difficult to make encyclopedic. At worst it is pure fancruft. — Falerin^{<talk>,<contrib>} 19:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:FICTION: Elements of a work of fiction, including individual stories...characters...are presumed to be notable if there is significant coverage of the element(s) in reliable secondary sources. It fails this, this character is only mentioned in the game. Only hits on Google are forums, gameguides, and, surprisingly, genealogy websites. These may be secondary sources, but they're not reliable and one of the mentioned websites have nothing to do with the character. For fictional elements, this will typically include the real-world context and analysis of the elements... No real world context. TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 22:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:25, 29 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. Found this link on PC Magazine online website, which appears to verify Karnesky's argument. --PeaceNT (talk) 03:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TestDisk[edit]

Non-notable software. I was not able to find any reviews or significant coverage by secondary sources. Aside from first two paragraphs, the rest of the article is written like an advertisement. Prod declined by a user who bears the name of the software's author, possible WP:COI issue here. Ham Pastrami (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I, Christophe Grenier, is the main software author, I have created a user page on wikipedia to make it clearer. I don't deny a possible WP:COI but the history of the article shows it has been edited by other people. The article contains a link to TestDisk & PhotoRec in the News that lists more than 20 reviews of the software.

Cgrenier (talk) 21:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find a single one that comes from a verifiable source. --neon white talk 21:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Advice is welcome. In its present form, what information still need to be validated by a verifiable source ?-- Cgrenier (talk) 12:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it is notable software that is included by many linux distros & per the sources that have been added to the article. Google news lists many other articles that could be cited and google books shows that it is described in many books. --Karnesky (talk) 01:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was also listed in a "best of the web" box in PC Magazine in June 2007. --Karnesky (talk) 01:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is extremely useful for users like me who use wikipedia to find the names of software in a certain category, such as disk-recovery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.73.21.22 (talk) 08:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, default to keep. Wizardman 22:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Willow Tree (novel)[edit]

While the author is definitely notable at least for having written Requiem for a Dream, I'm not confident he's hit the "all published works are automatically notable" level. And if he hasn't, this certainly isn't. Of course, anyone who'd like to argue he DOES fall into that field is welcome to assert so. Vianello (talk) 19:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a vote just a comment: I would argue that is is notable just because it is the first novel he wrote in very many years after Requiem for a Dream. It is notable because the author apparently stopped writing all together and then started writing again as if out of nowhere. — Falerin^{<talk>,<contrib>} 19:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While it doesn't address any specific notability criterion, that doesn't sound entirely unreasonable to me. The "re-entry" work of the author of a prominent piece of literature probably has some merit of notability, so you have a point there. - Vianello (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or maybe merge with the authors page. Filceolaire (talk) 22:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What? This is Hubert Selby Jr. we're talking about! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.157.77 (talk) 12:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. Redirects may be created through the editorial process. Sandstein 22:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Brewer[edit]

11 near identical biographies of members of JabbaWockeeZ, a dance crew featured in one season of a tv show. With no other sourced claims to notability these should be deleted per notability for only one event. Ros0709 (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The other articles are:

Ben Chung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chris Gatdula (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rynan Paguio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jeff Nguyen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Phil Tayag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Eddie Gutierrez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Saso Jimenez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Randy Bernal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Joe Larot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gary Kendell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete all. None of them are appropriately sourced. None of them establish independent notability. JBsupreme (talk) 18:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:BIO1E. --Theleftorium (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of deleting them, why don't we just redirect them to JabbaWockeeZ them being members of the group. TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 22:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirct all to JabbaWockeeZ - zero individual notability is shown --T-rex 00:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect All to JabbaWockeeZ, then improve that article to better show notability and verifiability of the group. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all these one-line biographies without reliable third-party sources until they (individually) achieve something which may warrant an entry. In the meantime, a single entry for JabbaWockeeZ would appear to suffice. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect All to JabbaWockeeZ. No deletion vote has as of yet indicated why this should not be done~, and it is a obvious redirect target. Taemyr (talk) 11:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Non-notable per WP:BIO. They're minor enough that I don't see any being a likely search term, so a redirect is unnecessary. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:41, 1 August 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. Sandstein 22:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bank Street (Manhattan)[edit]

Another article on a single non-notable residential street in NYC. PROD was contested with the statement: "clearly notable street/ no reason to remove", but I'm afraid I don't see what is so clearly notable from the article or the source. Beeblbrox (talk) 18:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but because I believe this article is the contribution of a banned user (User:Jvolkblum), who I also believe is the same person who removed the PROD template from the article. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum (16th). Although some of the content is valid, from experience I do not trust any material contributed by Jvolkblum and sockpuppets. I have removed the "See also" section from the article because it only contained an external link (not appropriate for that section) and the link had no apparent relevance to the subject of the article. As for Bank Street itself, it is the namesake and former location of Bank Street College of Education (see college's history), but you wouldn't know that from the Bank Street (Manhattan) article. --Orlady (talk) 18:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An Ad hominem argument against the article creator does not have baring on the notability of the topic. As for your reasoning related to Bank Street, I'm having trouble understanding your argument to delete the article; just because the article doesn't yet mention the Bank Street College of Education? That in fact is evidence of notability. --Oakshade (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the my alleged ad hominem argument, I was referring not to the notability of the topic but to WP banning policy. Contributions by banned users are subject to speedy deletion under criterion G5. Considering Jvolkblum's record of falsifying sources (among other things), I would not trust anything that this user contributed. The fact that this article listed an irrelevant external link but did not mention a fact that might be considered to make the street notable adds to my distrust of the contributor. --Orlady (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The external link that was removed was for Westbeth Artists Community, located at the end of Bank Street as seen here [24] (there is a map and the location is detailed as well; . . . "It encompasses the entire square block bounded by Bethune and Bank Streets on the north and south, and Washington and West Streets on the east and west". --StAuNcH ChArAcTeR (talk) 00:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fyi: The article has a google maps link that shows where it is and also a link that illustrates Bank Street and its cross streets and notable structures along them (with a brief description as to its namesake at the top of the webpage). The reference made by Orlady to the College of Bank Street is a further connection that she is making to cast doubt on the issue/article. Her rationale/arguments are inconsistant and jumbled. Despite the available links on the page her preference is to act 'confused'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by StAuNcH ChArAcTeR (talk • contribs) 19:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —Orlady (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - One of New York's oldest streets. The New York Times alone has at least two very in-depth articles about this street; one in 1921 entited "Improving Bank Street" [25] and the other in 2002 called "Habitats/Bank Street in Greenwich Village" [26]. --Oakshade (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment My understanding of the banning policy is that if this is a contribution by a banned user, it should be deleted without delay or prejudice to re-creation. I think we should hold it here until the WP:SOCK issue has been resolved. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

? what is so non-notable about this street that it warrants removal versus (for ex.)Bridge Street or Front Street? Bank street has a 'story' behind its name and there are landmark buildings located on it too (Westbeth the most significant example). <br />((please do not attribute the 'argument' from Orlady as I do not believe her intentions are anything but to argue 'banned user' to justify reverting contributions/edits of merit without question. Beeblbrox's comment illustrates my point. I'm sure to be removed/blocked from here, however this article definitely doesn't need to be.)) Thank You --StAuNcH ChArAcTeR (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The 2 NYT articles are enough. We could of course delete this on the basis of the author and one of us other editors could reinsert the material with the additional refs. under our own name, but it seems a little unnecessary. DGG (talk) 04:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just be sure to verify the contents of the entire article. After 86+ sockpuppets, some of us long ago ran out of patience with trying to figure out which of this person's contributions are valid and which are bilge. --Orlady (talk) 04:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From what I can see, it's an ordinary street. It happens to be an old one, that's all. I don't see any signs of notability here. We should remember that world-famous newspapers like the New York Times are also local newspapers as well, and cover things that nobody not in the immediate locality could conceivably care about. RayAYang (talk) 07:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WHOCARES and WP:UNKNOWNHERE are not a good arguments to delete an article. Per WP:NOTABILITY, the signs of notability are it's been the in-depth subject of secondary sources, particularly the New York Times. There are absolutely no "Local sources don't count" clauses anywhere in WP:NOTABILITY and WP:SOURCES.--Oakshade (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've reviewed the SSP case (linked earler in the AfD) and I've concluded that the user is yet another re-incarnation of the banned user Jvolkblum, which could realistically allow for this to be deleted under the G5 criterion, however, if the topic is relevant and notable to the topic of Manhattan I see no reason why it should be deleted. Participators will have to weigh up the rationale for creating such an article or whether the notability should come foremost; the latter I think should be the best determining factor. Rudget 13:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oakshade. The street's notability is not diminished by alleged contributions of a banned editor. If it helps maintain the "purity" of Wikipeia. then delete it for 1 second and recreate it in identical form. Seems like a waste of time, though. Edison (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Sources provided establish notability, and more is available to expand the article. Alleged taint of association with banned user is no excuse for a scorched earth policy on all articles the user came in contact with. Alansohn (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oakshade. Link to the College has also been added.Simon12 (talk) 03:57, 31 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. Wizardman 14:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Ruickbie[edit]

This article seems to be sourced entirely form the subject's own website. I did not see any obvious better sources in the 200-odd unique Googles either. Guy (Help!) 18:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then unless other sources can be found. Northwestgnome (talk) 18:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that there could be more independent refs here, but the subject meets notability criteria: "had works in many significant libraries", "An academic who has published a book or books of general interest", "The person is known for originating an important new concept". I got 2,720 hits on Google and there are more refs on the French page for this. If I get the time I can see about adding more sources. Formicarius (talk) 17:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biomilling[edit]

Not completely sure if this is notable or not. Only 344 hits on Google. Seems to be a commercial process for...something. (Can anyone understand the article?) I am also having trouble finding any reliable sources from third party publications. Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 17:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It doesn't sound right to me. For one thing the mention of fungus as a microorganism. Reviewing the fungus article, some are microorganisms: yeast for instance. But why doesn't the article say yeast if that was what is used? Northwestgnome (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agreed. Biomilling exists as a trademarked process - soaking with enzymes, then milling as described here - for refining maize for fermentation as a biofuel. The current article has nothing to do with that. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then as entire one line of article is apparently inaccurate / unsourced. Without prejudice to starting again if someone actually wants to write an article on the trademarked process. -Hunting dog (talk) 20:10, 27 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Esai[edit]

Notability issues; the subject produced no hits on Google. Article consists only of original research and does not cite any reliable sources. Unsourced religion similar to Brhmoism article. Beemer69 ^chitchat 17:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article seems to be mainly about legends of Jesus visiting India in his youth and Hindu views of Jesus. Both are great topics for articles if WP doesn't have them yet. Northwestgnome (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You might want to include Esa Masi in this AFD. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Done. Thanks for the info. Beemer69 ^chitchat 19:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is difference between ‘claim’ and ‘notability’ . as ‘Myths to ‘Reality’ . Such matter should not be debated or deleted but posted on wiki as who said what ? Nobody has seen the past how or why old Bible converted into New Bible? My case an stakes of Brhmoism , Esa Masi , Esa seeks Wikipedia-Arbitrary intervention urgently. For instance….. Mythology , Superstitions , Blind Faith , Fictions , Philosophy , Religions , Spiritualism , Consciousness are awkward or illogical claims to get Registered/Notifications/ References . Yet wikipedia has such topics otherwise which wikipedia / encyclopedia media caretakers paparazzi has noticed Buddha getting enlighten under Banyan tree , however Krishna orating Gita discourses to Arjun during crucial hours of busy bleeding war , or Jesus doing miracles or issuing commandments. In those days there were no internet , media or paparazzi to register, record claims references or sources and yet their claims are recorded in wiki. Naresh Sonee or Brhmoism is not a superstitious, blind faith institute. Various news papers had proved his factual existence through news and reviews. Even internet search throw many hits on him and Brhmaand Pujan. What else this debate needs? Just fight like means school boys only to prove the existence of such ‘able voice’ wrong? Should not such crab fight end in wikipedia to claim me wrong and concentrate to read then realize what is the ‘ intention or purpose’ of Brhmoism , Esai , Esa Masi. Should only professionally managed trust who profit under the name of some religion be posted on wikipedia either Asaram , Murari Bapu , Deepak Chopra. Though Esa Masi and Esa vice-versa Brhmoism are two different 'purpose or intention' topics . This will only help wikipedi / arbitrory to improve their judgemental views that myths, religions, beleifs and voice cannot be erased on only popularity of notability on search engines. For which I leave this matter to the expert senses of Wikipedia-Arbitrator. Regards --Dralansun (talk) 18:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Non-notable, possible OR and POV. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 11:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Esai is the just the Hindi word for Christians, not particularly Indian ones, also

Christianity in India already exists to discuss about the Indian followers of Christianity. Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just an Indi-language word for 'Christian'. 202.54.176.51 (talk) 03:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

talk:202.54.176.51|talk]]) 03:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete Largely a copypaste of Esa Masi. Article is a mix of unsourced claims, original research, and self-promotion of Brhmoism. Edward321 (talk) 23:20, 31 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). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of main battle tanks by generation[edit]

This scheme of MBT generations is not supported by any reliable or verifiable source, nor even adequately described in the self-published foreign-language web sites cited, so the list is based on original research. Discussion at the article and the Wikiproject yielded nothing. —Michael Z. 2008-07-27 17:32 z

Withdrawing this request, thanks to developments noted below. Thanks for your opinion, and sorry to take your time. Regards. —Michael Z. 2008-07-28 23:01 z

Delete Original research, unless some other source gives the same breakdown. Tanks have been around almost 100 years now. Wouldn't you expect there to be more than 3 "generations"? -Northwestgnome (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Main battle tank refers to the general type of tank design prevalent since the end of WWII. The idea of three MBT generations is not impossible, but the fact is that references to such are rare and obscure, and apparently no one has ever defined them. —Michael Z. 2008-07-27 18:25 z
Delete - as inherent OR --T-rex 00:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this may be salvagable. I can't read polish, but it looks like that site (unreliable as it may or may not be) is basically ranking MBT's by generation. Let me dig out my old jane's book to see if they do the same thing. It's likely not OR, at least. Protonk (talk) 03:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I don't have it anymore and there are no previews for the MBT books from Janes. I'll look at the library tomorrow. Protonk (talk) 03:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Jane's armor books at my library (weak). I'm still going to side on weak keep for this article as I don't think it is OR and I'm fairly certain that lists delineated in this fashion exist. Protonk (talk) 17:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors have been fairly certain for eleven months, and came up with zilch. But they wasted tonnes of time and energy revert-warring each other in this list, based only on their opinions. Please, let's stop condoning original research based on pure speculation. —Michael Z. 2008-07-28 19:25 z

I'm not condoning OR. I just don't have a copy of Jane's ref on MBT's in hand. If I did I could give an easy up/down to this. I'm of the mind that if Jane's doesn't roughly classify MBT's by generations, we shouldn't. Protonk (talk) 23:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This nomination appears to a point nomination made after an increasingly fractious but fruitless content dispute with very few editors actually involved. Quite simply, I refuse to believe the side taken by the nominator in that discussion and now here that there are no reliable sources from which comparative classing and listing of MBT's is possible. If these contradict each other, as they would because it is always going to involve subjective assesment of what's important in a tank, it can be documented in the article. A list of MBTs by comparison of features, even if the only agreed measure of comparison comes down to simple factors such as first build date, range, gross weight or speed, is eminently worthy of creation, as a usefull fork of Tank classification, which itself needs improvement. Afd is not a step in dispute resolution, and it seems the parties are too heavily 'engaged' to think outside the box in the dispute to achieve agreement. MickMacNee (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to create such a list. This one is original research. There are no contradictory sources, there is nothing. The basis for this list is wild extrapolation from a few mentions on an untranslated, anonymous hobby site.

I tried for eleven months to encourage the editor of this article to find any acceptable reference at all, or to translate the proferred foreign-language text. I checked my own references and canvassed at the appropriate WikiProject. When a second editor became active and the two started revert-warring over their own versions of original research, I decided that enough was enough, and gradually moved towards the deletion request.

Shame on you for accusing me of disrupting Wikipedia. —Michael Z. 2008-07-28 19:21 z

I'm calling it how I see it. A cursory google search turns up plenty of references for x generation MBT, so how it's taken 11 months is beyond me. Deletion is not warranted purely through failure to agree a standard for the article. I will repeat, because it covers an international comparison, any source is going to be subjective, even things like Janes, this doesn't stop other comparative lists. We can even set and state our own criteria for inclusion in a generation or other classification, as long as that measures a verifiable quality, such as range. That is not as some people mistakenly believe, original research. MickMacNee (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went through each of Google's top 50 results for <mbt tank generation>. Many instances of generalized next-generation, latest-generation, new-generation tank, and a few like this generation or each generation of tanks, or tanks of its generation. A number of results where generation describes a thermal site, suspension system, or something else. A few describing the generations of tank production in China (starting with the Type 59 copy of the Soviet T-54A),[27][28][29][30] or the fourth generation of Merkava (i.e. the Merkava Mark IV). A couple uncited mentions in mil-fan forums. A very few where some large generation number is being used for promotional purposes, describing tanks which don't exist yet,[31] and often referring to the completely different Soviet/Russian scheme of tank generations which begins in the 1920s.[32][33][34]

There is one single relevant mention, without explanation or references, on a plastic model manufacturer's site calling the Leclerc a “third generation” MBT, complete with quotation marks.[35]

Same goes for the top 20 Google Books hits. Nothing.

It's all nice to argue “I'm sure you could find a reference,” and to name-drop Janes (which doesn't mention MBT generations), and cite “a cursory google search” (which has no verifiable source for these MBT generations), and mention the problem of international comparisons (still nada). But there is not a single verifiable source even mentioning this scheme of MBT generations.

Nothing.

So if you're voting to keep, I hope you'll also volunteer to spend the next 11 months looking for references and keeping the fans of this article from squabbling about their extrapolations. —Michael Z. 2008-07-28 21:26 z

I found a credible source for one tank in the top 5 google hits for "third generation main battle tank". As I said above, if you are trying to find a silver bullet so that all the tanks in this article can be covered by a single source to satisfy the current wording, you won't find it, for obvious reasons. But that is absolutely not a reason to delete the article because it isn't a viable topic in your opinion, which is clearly now very tainted by the dispute. By starting an Afd you've actually put me off trying to work on this article, as I don't want to risk wasting my time, or be forced into rushing the required research into 5 days, but it has to be pointed out there are no signs that the standard steps in ending the dispute constructively on the talk page by inviting comment (bar the project you mentioned, but I don't know how busy that project is, and I personally don't think projects are all that usefull anyway, I certainly don't monitor any for leads), nor any attempt at taking a completely different approach to the current wording which you assert is problematic. It is not necessarily so that the current generational wording is even the way to go, as said, it can be anything quantifiable and verifiable.

It is ultimately quite depressing that there will probably more eyes directed to this disupte because it is listed for deletion than has happened in the entire history of the long but circular talk page, because Afd is ultimately a destructive rather than constructive process, and as said, at 5 days, doesn't give much time for constructive collaberative improvement. Anyway, comments are starting to get long winded and circular here too, so I think I'll leave it at that as my final word for now. MickMacNee (talk) 21:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I started encouraging the editors of the article to improve it by finding a reference which was rejected as irrelevant in October 2007. Your alternative suggestions may be worthwhile lists to start separately.

Anyway, I tried the search you mentioned above, and looked through the top 40 hits of <"first generation main battle tank">, and all hits for 2nd, 3rd, 4th. I found exactly one respectable source (a Master of Defence Studies paper at the Canadian Forces College). It's not much to go on, but it fulfils my request of a single source to base this on. I'll withdraw my request and forward the reference to the article's editors.

Sorry to take your time. —Michael Z. 2008-07-28 23:01 z

Comment from the creator: I'm surprised that this list has created such an uproar. I study military vehicles for a few years now and in military circles the MBT generation system which is currently used in that list is common knowledge. Anyway I have translated most important parts about MBT generations of article on pancerni website on 17 of July. On the same day I also posted it in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Military land vehicles task force#List of main battle tanks by generation discussion. The rest of the article on that website isn't relevant to what is considered to be a first, second or third generation MBT. Here's the translation I'm talking about: "The first generation MBTs are tanks made immediately after WWII. The second generation MBTs have better sights in comparison to the first generation MBTs. Also second generation MBTs were the first ones to use laser sights and APFSDS rounds. The third generation consists of tanks armed with high caliber and velocity guns like M1A1 Abrams. Third generation tanks also use composite armour as well as armour made out of highly resistant sintered ceramic materials. Third generation tanks also have full stabilization system for the main gun. There tanks between second and third generations, like Soviet T-72 which has powerful gun which would classify it as a third generation MBT but at the same time the stabilization system is much too primitive for it to a third generation MBT. It also lacks engine power to be a third generation MBT and has ammunition with less quality." Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 23:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has something to say about Common knowledge, too. Please quote your translation in a footnote and properly cite the source, if it is to used as the basis for the list. Please note that this description doesn't seem to correspond to the definition of MBT generations which I found in the CLC paper. —Michael Z. 2008-07-28 23:55 z

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

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

The result was no consensus, default to keep. Sandstein 22:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq_War_Scandal[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Iraq War Scandal

POV Fork Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm sure that a lot of money was stolen in the course of the Iraq War. But the article, as it is, is just original research. Each instance of theft is its own scandal. There is no evidence of an over-all "Iraq War Scandal", any more than there is a "World War Two Scandal" or an "American Civil War Scandal". Northwestgnome (talk) 17:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Save Please save this article. Surprisingly, BBC a British News Agency, and not any US news agency, revealed this alleged scandal. BBC is a credible news agency and I'm sure there might be other scandals as well. If so, please make a cobined page of all the Iraq-war scams so as to give more information to the people rather than deleting information. This could turn out to be a major-scandal, and people need to know about it. --Bugnot (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep the article with the new title. --Bugnot (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article has other sources as well including Guardian (UK) (Ref#7) as well as others. Moreover, US media's silence over this issue is questionable; otherwise this article would have many, many sources. Unfortunately, US media has diverted its attention and is also trying to divert people's attention over unimportant issues, rather than real ones that matter. $23 Billion is a sizeable amount to be just gobbled up, unaccounted for! Many small countries' economies combined couldn't equal that amount.

If you wish to add further sources, please do so.--Bugnot (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please improve the article rather than simply deleting it. It's an important issue which has received no mainstream-media coverage, and, thus, it needs people's attention. It's a big-scandal regarding taxpayers' money, so it needs a big-mention, not a small one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugnot (talk • contribs) 08:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are only confirming what is wrong with what you have written in the article. Wikipedia is not a place to campaign for getting the facts out. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Northwestgnome. There isn't any evidence of an overriding "Iraq War Scandal". It might be worth a brief mention in Iraq War or elsewhere, but not its own article. --Hut 8.5 18:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change to keep now scope has been redefined. Article still needs work. Hut 8.5 20:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and try to write a focused article with a better title, though I have no immediate suggestions. One may be become apparent as events develop and news stories accumulate.DGG (talk) 19:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under the more appropriate title devised by TerrierFan, "Iraq War misappropriations" DGG (talk) 04:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The new title is certainly better, but still suggests that Misappropriations happened and this is accepted fact. I don't know if this is true, but it would certainly appear to be disputed. This is why I think the article is a POV fork. Its content certainly covers a notable issue, all be it in on-sided manner, but it belongs in a broader, neutral article such as Financial cost of the Iraq War or similar. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have moved the page to a better targeted title. This is well sourced and, under the new title, seems encyclopaedic. TerriersFan (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Keep the new-titled one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.64.71 (talk) 20:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC) — 117.201.64.71 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Weak Delete The article currently relies too much on a single secondary source, it needs more sources currently it seems to be more about a tv documentary then any event, title and lead are still poor, it should be descriptive and not attempt to 'coin' a new term. misappropriations is just too much of an innuendo for theft in my opinion. --neon white talk 21:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Particular scandals may be notable. But I'm worried that this is a vehicle for POV attacks on the Iraq War. We wouldn't tolerate an article titled "Things Wrong with John McCain" either -- subject matter may well be notable, but move it into appropriate, balanced articles on an item-by-item basis. RayAYang (talk) 07:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 08:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a worthy topic for an article, but the current article is such a mess of POV that it would be better to delete it and start again. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not even sure the topic is that reasonable, as this implies there is some over arching connected set of misappropriations. Anyway, POV as it is, and rather soapy.Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. The article does have WP:POV and WP:SOAP problems, but this is well-sourced information, and Wikipedia should carry it in some form. AndyJones (talk) 12:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It relies on a single source which isnt great for an article. If it was notable wouldn't there be more reporting on this? --neon white talk 13:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Panorama + Dispatches + Guardian + BBC Website = a single source? Sorry, I don't understand your point at all. Can you clarify? AndyJones (talk) 07:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Panorama is by the BBC the website is about the show, it is the same source. The guardian article is about a different scandal altoghether and there lays the current major problem with the article. --neon white talk 13:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The article doesn't rely on a single-source because there are other sources as well, look carefully. If you want to add more sources, add. But should $23 billion worth of taxpayer's money be doomed due to uninformed public? It needs more attention if mainstream-media might deliberately be not reporting this. This is not POV because it's a neutral article with credible external-sources, including BBC. Does BBC reports wrongly or for election campaigns?

From WP:POV: The article should represent the POVs of the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue. Wikipedia's official "Neutral Point of View" (NPOV) policy does not mean that all the POVs of all the Wikipedia editors have to be represented.

--117.201.64.88 (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Save~~Comment. Only the facts have been reported (thanks to Ground Zero and Hut 8.5) and there is no-speculation in this article as it's a concrete and well-sourced report. It's also verifiable because BBC, Guardian, and others are well-known and credible-sources. So what if no US media reports it? Who knows it might be deliberately being kept off public-view so as to save high public-figs. (including Prez.). It takes courage to report things of such-scale, and BBC had the courage. Watergate anyone? Iraqigate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugnot (talk • contribs) 22:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but -- sheesh! -- this article is a disaster. It might actually be better to userfy it for a while if there is an experienced editor willing to work on it unmolested for a bit. It should probably be stubbed and then very carefully grown. Anybody got time for this? Unfortunately, the enthusiastic editors who piled in to create this didn't know what they were doing and don't understand how to write neutral text. I've edited Bugnot's double "Save" vote to make the second one a comment, assuming that was a mere error. It's a bit distressing to see all the political arguments here. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper or magazine, where those arguments might be appropriate. --Abd (talk) 23:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I stubbed it down. Some of what was taken out might come back with proper context and sourcing and attribution, though much of it was COATRACK. --Abd (talk) 00:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Save and Comment Article updated and complete, though any edits by admins can still be done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.65.66 (talk) 09:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Still looks like a complete mess to me, sorry. Can you explain what improvements you consider there have been since Abd stub-ed this? AndyJones (talk) 12:43, 1 August 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Bedlow[edit]

Steve Bedlow was a member of both, The Libertines and Babyshambles, however he was only a very, very brief member. Both bands were not even signed to a label when he was with them. His membership in this bands did not affect the bands at all. Right now he's nothing more than a bar musician. There are thousands of his sort. This person is definitely not notable enough for an own article. Malfacteur (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable in his own right, even if he had been ia more significant member of the bands he would still probably not merit his own page. Possibly worth keeping as a redirect to one or other of the bands - which one I don't know. nancy ^talk 19:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Not notable. Artene50 (talk) 04:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree this subject is not a notable musician. WP is not myspace Ohconfucius (talk) 06:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Eads-Brown[edit]

Non-notable person. 31 hits on Google for "Joshua Eads-Brown", only 51 total hits without quotes. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 17:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be non-notable. I could not find any significant coverage by third-party WP:RS after quite a bit of google-searching. Several awards are listed in the article but their significance is difficult to judge without more info about the awards and verification that they have in fact been awarded. I tried, unsuccessfully, to verify one of the awards listed in the article, given there as "Outstanding Performer, American Association of Community Theatre". I looked at the website of American Association of Community Theatre. They have an awards section there[36], but nothing like "Outstanding Performer" appears among them. Just in case, I looked up the three subpages for the different kinds of awards given at the AACT website[37][38][39] and Eads' name does not appear in any of them. So there are both notability and WP:V problems here. Thus the article fails both WP:V and WP:CREATIVE. Nsk92 (talk) 00:09, 28 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amerikado Karate[edit]

Non notable karate style, advert-like aticle RogueNinja_talk 17:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete tried investigating this earlier and couldn't find any reliable independent sources referencing this style. -Hunting dog (talk) 18:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn new style, ad. JJL (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN advert with 1 primary source dressed up as a journal --Nate1481(^t/_c) 07:38, 28 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 non-notable --Step hen 05:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Hodge[edit]

Non-notable singer, fails WP:MUSIC. Despite the article's assertions of numerous TV appearances, there is no IMDB entry for either "Timothy W. Hodge" or "Timothy Hodge." No reliable sources crop up, and the only hits pertaining to this artist (there's a modestly known R&B singer by the same name, if a good bit older) are his own website, this article, various Wiki mirrors and a couple self-posting music sites. Fails WP:V. _{(taken from RGTraynor's exemplary nomination at this article's previous speedily closed AFD - WP:Articles for deletion/Timothy W Hodge)} nancy ^talk 17:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete..... again. Still fails notability per WP:MUSIC & WP:ENTERTAINER. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 17:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ultra-Mega-Super Delete Another uunsourced page, most likely created to dodge this. I have tried to talk to the persons involved, but they don't seem to get it. Beeblbrox (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A non-notable singer as evidenced by the lack of reliable sources. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and this time let's not jump to trying to speedy it. That way we can cut straight to db-g4 if it comes around again. - Vianello (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The other article was speedied because the author blanked it out, feeling it was unneeded now that this page is here, so i think a better idea is to pass around the WP:SALT. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - as above, the other version was only speeded because it was blanked. See also the creator's other pieces of walled garden about various Hodges etc. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt Whilst noting my G7 speedy on the last one was totally in process. However I agree that this debate potentialy can be used as a G4 if the article turns up under another title. Pedro : Chat 20:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The two editors responsible for all these articles are clogging up my talk page with garbage about why this shouldn't be deleted, yet they apparently refuse to actually add sources or participate in the discussion here.... Beeblbrox (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)21:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt the earth: This article, and its related ones, have been repeatedly CSDed, AfDed and prodded over the last couple days. They've been speedied and recreated, speedied again and recreated with slight variations on the names. The two creating accounts, User:Sunpop and User:Daisy404, have repeatedly spammed several users (I've had about a dozen letters from them myself) with the repeated riff "Do not delete" and "you do the research." They have been near-completely unresponsive to instructions to review the appropriate policies, guidelines and notability criteria, nor have they responded to suggestions that if they are finding as many valid sources as they claim, putting those sources in the articles would be a good idea. None of the subjects in any of these articles are notable, and perhaps salting will get the editors to hold still long enough to listen. RGTraynor 23:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — & salt. Again, no evidence of notability. doña macy [talk] 00:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And now the articles creators have been blocked as sockpuppets. Beeblbrox (talk) 05:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, default to keep. A merge discussion can be opened if desired. Wizardman 14:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cfdisk[edit]

No assertion or evidence of notability and no sources found other than manpage mirrors, which do not constitute significant third-party coverage. Ham Pastrami (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - cfdisk is a widely used tool in Linux and known to a large number of people installing and administering Linux systems. Usually part of the default installation. Article would be better with more sources, but cfdisk is notable - 146 results from google book search. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 20:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those books are about Linux systems, not cfdisk. It is not independently notable, so based on those results this would be a merge at best. I wonder if there is an article similar to List of Unix utilities that would be an appropriate merge target. Ham Pastrami (talk) 11:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. cfdisk is included by default by many operating systems. There is no policy that states that a wikipedia article must have an entire book dedicated to the subject in order to have "non-trivial" coverage & multiple pages in many notable books is surely enough to satisfy WP:V. In addition to the books, cfdisk is mentioned is several news articles (none that I found were only about cfdisk, but some were on subjects as narrow as dual-booting or partitioning, rather than *nix as a whole). --Karnesky (talk) 01:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with fdisk., But consider these two paragraphs "but with a more pleasing user interface" and "One advantage of cfdisk (over fdisk for example) is, that it's possible to enlarge an Extended Partition, when there's free space after the partition. This is not directly possible with fdisk and some other partitioning software." seams like Wikipedia:Original research.--Puttyschool (talk) 05:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)--Puttyschool (talk) 08:28, 29 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 notability established. Tan ǀ 39 15:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

W-PuTTY-CD[edit]

I think that this is a product article, but I'm not certain. The references for this article are: a user subpage at a private website; a link to a Google search that actually only returned 67 hits, not all unique; and the PuTTY page on Wikipedia. What exactly makes this particular subject notable enough for inclusion? I just can't tell. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, this isn't a product, per se, as it is free software, licensed under a very non-restrictive MIT License. Also, I took the time to read what it is, and I must say, that from a programmer's perspective, it is an interesting concept. However, that is original research. « D. Trebbien (talk) 17:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The first free SSH client library for windows--Puttyschool (talk) 13:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CobaltBlueTony™, May I clarify my point of view
I respect your opinion but I want to clarify the following few points
- I think Google search hits count depends on sitemap data file, but I'm not certain. so we can’t not depend on it.
- I add Google as I use it, but what about all search engines returning data about it.
- And if we can depend on Google hit count, then what about this WiKi page W-PuTTY-CD was accessed more than 50 times from Google in just few days also some users posted comments in its talk page.
- I followed all rules According to my understanding also I added the following two stub to the talk page. Template:WikiProject Computing (talk · links · edit), ((WPFS)), both as I think these project fulfill both criteria
- Also I added this stub to the end of the page. ((compu-prog-stub)) And this means this is not a finished article,
- I don’t say that this article is notable to all persons, but sure it is notable to programmers. You can observe by yourself after asking Google how these words PuTTY DLL used in promoting products through the internet.
- Why Google returns this page W-PuTTY-CD and how it return it, isn't it still an internal wiki page.
- if you checked W-PuTTY-CD license, You will see how it is honest enough and shows all copyrights, also I think this an important point to be noted as it is the first time the MIT license is used in this way.
--Puttyschool (talk) 18:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Puttyschool, please assert that you have no idea who Eghabour and Halimshakka are, the other users who added comments. Also, what are you referring to by "WiKi page W-PuTTY-CD was accessed more than 50 times from Google in just few days"? The only way I know of to access hit counts for Wikipedia articles is http://stats.grok.se, but this does not have numbers for W-PuTTY-CD yet. « D. Trebbien (talk) 20:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Continuing with the line of questioning posed by User:dtrebbien, the fact that the talk page received 3 comments (all stating how wonderful this page is) is slightly suspect, since that tends not to happen. Each of these comments are the sole contributions to WP made by each editor and, looking at the last comment - the anon one - the IP address traces back to Egypt which is where User:Puttyschool hails from. Regardless of the content of this page, something needs to be addressed regarding the methods being utilized by User:Puttyschool in trying to establish notability. Sonuvafitch (talk) 21:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't anything needs to be done. It's pretty futile and will have no affect on the closing decision of the afd. However keep an eye out for vote stacking SPAs here. --neon white talk 22:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure I don’t know any of those users, also I spent more than one month reading WiKi guides, and I know such talk will not address notability, and enforces the opposite side. I was trying to say if we depend on CobaltBlueTony reference about Google hit count we can say ...... i.e. we cannot depend of Google hit count and such comments
    And if anyone can roll the history, of this article and talk page, he will notice that I created W-PuTTY-CD in a very stupid way before, at this time I was very new to wiki, also I’m shame to say that I did not respect admins point of view as at this time I did not know who are admins, I was calling all users Wikipedians, and I was thinking of them as user like me. Also it was deleted in less than 30 min. Then I spent more time reading the guides to re-write W-PuTTY-CD, not as I’m biased to W-PuTTY-CD , but as this is my first lesson.
    When I write it back using what I learnt from the guides I noticed the notability note, so I add my point of view about finding references about free software and I think this was not good, as maybe this what encourage peoples, most probably interested with it, to write their comments.
    Then after a week while searching this page, I asked D. Trebbien why he adds the notability note, only to know the reason. And when I found the comments, I tried to remove them, but I decide to add a polite note holding the meaning of write your private opinion at the end of the page, i.e. we don’t want to hear your BOLD private opinion, but you can help with resources.
    To all of you admins, from different countries, I want to say something, I only care about W-PuTTY-CD as it is my first article and related to something I understand very well. And to all who knows details about programming, can you tell us how much this library is an important and must have a place hear, not only as it free and simplifies a lot for developers, but as keeping it in WikipediA will be a good asset; also will stop all methods used by web sites to fool developers searching for a free DLL holding an SSH implementing.
    And especially for you Sonuvafitch please don’t pre-judge, the fixed IP most probably from Arabic wiki as it was in the same day the Arabic translation is evaluated and found notable as a seed that needs more enlargements. --Puttyschool (talk) 23:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Starting new articles is tough. You have to really understand the criteria we use when deciding whether to keep or delete an article. Additionally, our guidelines aren't as clear as they could be.
      I know that lots of editors have had their writings deleted (yes, including me), and sometimes it is a trial-and-error process.
      Please do not be disheartened if W-PuTTY-CD is deleted, because most Wikipedians interpret the policy strictly. However, there are plenty of other articles which you might like to edit: Library (computing), C (programming language), Secure Shell, PuTTY, ...
      Also, I think that you are starting out really well, believe it or not. It is good that you wrote: "we cannot depend [on] Google hit count and such comments", because this shows reasonable understanding of original research.
      « D. Trebbien (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - may be I have a reasonable understanding of original research and what are the differences when we talk about PreRelease Software, at the same time I trust your opinions as you are always speaking from a neutral point of view, Thanks a lot and I’m sorry for the [typing mistake].--Puttyschool (talk) 01:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment Don't worry, I'm not judging anything, and I can truly understand where you're coming from (my first article was deleted). Also note that I didn't give my opinion in the least regarding keep or delete. In the case of this article, I didn't take the time I would consider adequate to look into the background of a topic before stating "keep" or "delete" - so I didn't say either. I wouldn't just say "delete" because it looked like someone was stacking up praise for an article, because that would be judging an entire article based on one flaw. Just bear in mind that people are very wary of SPAs, and the comments left on the article's talk page do look suspect. Sonuvafitch (talk) 06:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment Yes, they do look and they are strange, also with no users trace. May be my first comment was the cause, may be cause of Google return to this page, but I think you can judge only my comment and if it has a relation with the following comments Else you are giving me a green light to spoil any document which I don’t like using such comments. I don’t care if your first article is deleted or not, but I will care about the reasons, I can use the reasons to achieve further progress, but deleted equals yes without Good reasons means don’t try to create an article, it will be deleted. Sorry for miss understanding.--Puttyschool (talk) 17:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep with a note on top, I'm the author of this article, sure I must recommending this.
Must Keep the Wikimedia Commons page, as this article is accepted by Arabic Wikipedia, and the commons page is shared.--Puttyschool (talk) 12:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no coverage from reliable secondary sources to assert encyclopedic notability, particularly for a piece of beta software. — Scientizzle 15:24, 4 August 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ezekiel Darkpath[edit]

Contested Prod. This was just created but it is an obvious made up term as I engine searched and got no hits. The articles also has no references. I attempted to speedy delete (under G1 and G3) it but the creator removed the tag. S_RX 16:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, obvious hoax. JIP | Talk 17:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I already speedied the article once before as G10 (attack page) concerned that "Ezekiel Darkpath" is a real person and the derogatory image that is linked to. Jon513 (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious nonsense. Edward321 (talk) 23:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Unreferenced, obviously a hoax. doña macy [talk] 00:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absolute crap. JuJube (talk) 01:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy if possible otherwise just WP:SNOW delete. Nothing to discuss, here. AndyJones (talk) 12:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

M.I.A. (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This was kept after barely surviving previous Afd, based on it allegedly meeting two criteria of WP:Band, however the article in its current state does not establish notability with mostly primary sources used as references. These do Not meet WP:RS. It has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. Apparently appearing on a couple of compillations and allmusic is not enough to establish notabity here, and I recommend deletion. Even after clean up, external links (not satisfyling WP:RS) provided mention a member, not about the band or their achievements. Whilst noting that attempts have been made to improve the article, it still fails ~~most~~ all criteria for WP:Band and unlike the first Afd, this could really benefit from wider ranging views ShimShem (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Band is notable with multiple commercial recordings on notable labels. References are plentiful in the article. Sources are reliable journalists who have covered the music industry for years. Don't accept one person's opinion of whether a particular Wikipedia guideline has been met; read the guideline and decide for yourself. People who are at all knowledgeable about punk rock know that this was a significant band, as evidenced, for example, by the outpouring of support at the recent fundraisers given to benefit the children of the late Mike Conley. Gaohoyt (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking at the original afd, the vote ended up being 6-0 for keep. That's not "narrowly" surviving. Gaohoyt (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree. This article has gone through afd before, six months ago, and so clearly it is not just one person's opinion that its sources (all either primary,/ non RS or from one publication allmusic) do not assert notability. It fails to establish notability through multiple reliable sources and fails ~~nearly~~ every criteria of WP:Band. Your view that it fulfils a couple of criteria on WP:Band (albeit barely) doesn't automatically warrant a keep. I note that you took part in the previous Afd, and it clearly appears you are a fan of the band, but in its current state, in my view, the article does not meet wikipedia's guidelines. I think enough time has lapsed to find more reliable sources to establish the band's notablity for the article but at this time, they arent' present/forthcoming. ShimShem (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Needs improvement, not deletion. This is obviously notable, and there are plenty of reliable sources. A search for "M.I.A. punk band" on Google brings up 4,350,000 results (seriously). — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 17:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment looking through the search most are blog mentions or referring to other individuals/musicians and not this band. Six months have passed to improve this article. Please include relevant sources that are reliable. Also, as shown here [40] the person proposing deletion at the time of closing afd1 recommended that the "case may well benefit from wider comment."ShimShem (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Here's a few sources which make this notable (in addition to the fact this article meets WP:Band notability guidelines):

I think you are forgetting that this band was short-lived, and was around a long time ago. As such, finding reliable sources online is very hard. But finding information from local sources from Orange County archives might prove more successful. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 17:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Careful - that last story is about a different MIA. The second one might be worth adding. There are far more secondary sources in the article than there were last January, even so. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. It seems there are a lot of MIAs. But as I already said, finding sources online is very hard since this is a small, short-lived "indie" band from the 80s. Using archives from the local area will yield more results, I think. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 17:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The band definitely toured the US and Canada in 1984-5 (WP:BAND#C4), there will be plenty of paper-based gig reviews etc. out there. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 18:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I think we might be getting somewhere. Apart from you admitting you have no reliable sources to back up your claims, the one's you've just included on the article are still not reliable. I'm looking for a larger consensus on this than just punk rock fans that's all. Looking at their "discography" based on the ~~sources~~ band's website you've provided, one album and a re-release have been issued on Alternative Tentacles which you claim is notable, and neither refer to the band as M.I.A. One recording says "M.I.A" and another on the label says "MIA". If this article does survive per allegedly meeting Cat 5, which you haven't proven it does, and I don't agree it does, at the very least, its title should reflect this.ShimShem (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not wishing to assume bad faith here, but your obvious desperation to delete this article despite it clearly being notable (and now to change its name) makes me suspicious. Would it be anything to do with your interest in Tamil subjects, and hence M.I.A. (artist)? Because I can't see any other reason now. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it wouldn't, the reasoning, as I've listed above, is far more self-explanatory, as is your clear attempt to not address the concerns I've listed but bring in something irrelevant into the discussion. ShimShem (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ShimShem, EXPN is definitely reliable, as part of the ESPN network. As already stated above, the Internet is *not* the place to look for reliable sources. You can't simply pop up reliable sources in 5 minutes - You have to look in archives and spend some real time researching, since this is an old band that hasn't had anything said about it for a long time. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only person bringing irrelevancies into this, such as the spelling of the band's name, is the nominator. Those "concerns" are not relevant to the the only issue that is being discussed here - whether the band is notable. By Wikipedia policy, it is, just as it was last January. The fact that you are still claiming there are no reliable sources, despite the fact there are a number in the article, are what led me to suspect a different motive for the nomination. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok wackymacks. Assuming for a second that source is reliable, what is the source establishing? The band's notablilty or a member's notability? How does it establish the band's notability? It doesn't, it refers to a deceased member. per WP:Biography or WP:Band it simply doesn't meet the requirements. Do the differences between the sources influence the band's notablity on wiki? I honestly ask this in good faith. How does the label refer to the band? Is the label notable? Reliable sources are required to establish notability is what I've read. Until then, it should be noted that it appears unnotable at the very least. 6 months is a while to find rs which is why I thought to nominate it again. If you honestly believe enough reliable sources are forthcoming to establish what you yourself describe as a small indie band from the '80s, then at the least, take into consideration my queries and recommendations.ShimShem (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Besides passing WP:Band (even the nom admits this), it's an iconic punk band in the California punk scene.[41] --Oakshade (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:MUSIC#C5. Only needs to pass 1 of the 12 criteria, which it does. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 17:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is the view of people saying it does meet a notablilty guideline, wishing to keep it that I'm highlighting is not backed up by multiple varied reliable sources. It fails Category 5, as I fail to see how the label is notable either. Those articles also have references issues. If it is established, then we can take it from there. ShimShem (talk) 17:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't know how Alternative Tentacles is notable, you probably shouldn't be nominating music-related articles for deletion, frankly. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it fails Guideline 5, as it has not released two albums on said label as explained below. ShimShem (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not only passes WP:MUSIC#C5, but also #6 (Daly and Arnold were in Big Drill Car) and will definitely pass #4 (nationwide concert tours, but I think any refs for this will be tricky to find on the net). Having said that, nominating an article which easily sailed through AFD only 6 months ago and has been improved since then (most of the references are NOT primary any more) seems fairly pointless to me. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You haven't demonstrated how it meets those other criteria, you haven't provided reliable sources to back up your assertions, and I agree with the WP:Band guidelines that in cases where you say they may be met, a redirect would be far more appropriate. ShimShem (talk) 14:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely notable. Also, the nominator's assertion that the article "barely survived AfD" is obviously inaccurate. Even the point that the AfD's existence shows that "it is not just one person's opinion that its sources ... do not assert notability" is flawed, as the first nomination was withdrawn. Maxa megalon 2000 18:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is a consensus building exercise. Not a vote. Please explain how it meets notability guidelines.

Keep same as I voted last time. They meet WP:MUSIC criterion #4 by releasing music on Alternative Tentacles (OK the keep voters haven't actually told the nom why the label is notable. They released music by Dead Kennedys - who's former singer Jello Biafra owns the label, Butthole Surfers and The Melvins all of which have charting singles and albums in the UK and/or US. This makes the label a notable independant label). The allmusic guide entry features a biography and several reviews. It could certainly use some more reliable sources, but the band passes WP:MUSIC (you don't need to pass EVERY critereon, just one). Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok DocStrange. Thank You. It might meet one criterion for now, but that label's notability must be established on that article. And I certainly agree with you, both articles could use more reliable sources if there are any. Alternative Tentacles' page for the band lists them as MIA - Does anyone have problems with the article being moved to the page MIA (band) while more sources are found?ShimShem (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I've just noticed is that the label Alternative Tentacles credits just one album to MIA that they've released on their official page in the bottom right, the others being compilation appearances.ShimShem (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AT releases are Murder in a Foreign Place (VIRUS035) [42] and Lost Boys (VIRUS258) [43] which contains the first album, plus 20-something other tracks. The reason only the latter is on the AT website is because the former is out of print. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:It fails this criteria as they have not released two albums on the said label, one is clearly an EP of the other. ShimShem (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC) It would also be helpful if maintainers could include reliable sources to demonstrate the notability of the label on the label's page. I see a list of performers, but no refs. Which ones released music on the label that charted, are notable etc. with refs. ShimShem (talk) 13:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are 410 items from Google Books - the first page is mostly published discographies but there are more interesting entries later on. Page 225-226 of Roy Shuker's Understanding Popular Music for instance is a good coverage of the Alternative Tentacles obscenity trial controversy. The Alternative Tentacles article is poor, and almost entirely unreferenced, I'll try to make some improvements today. --Stormie (talk) 22:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question. I'm not sure what the rules are (and like any good punker I hate rules anyway), but don't you have to assume that Alternative Tentacles is notable, since it has its own Wikipedia article? Only if you got that deleted (and good luck with that!) could you make that claim. Gaohoyt (talk) 20:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - the notability of the record label doesn't have to be established on that article at all. That's like saying a footballer is notable because he plays for Manchester United, and then having to explain why the team is notable. Any such notability should be established in the record label's article (and if it's got an article, it's very probably notable anyway). Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one's asking anyone to establish the label's notability on the band's article. The label's article itself has a big template listing multiple issues currently wrong with the article which is what I was talking about. The prose says the band MIA released an EP Murder in a Foreign Place in 1984 on the label in its prose section. I'm moving the article to MIA (band) for now. ShimShem (talk) 20:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are reliable sources (such as All Music Guide) on this band, and are not mentioned trivially. Check all the inline refrences in the article and comment later. Again, I propose that all notability guidelines be abolished. --RekishiEJ (talk) 22:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the nom has changed the name of the article to MIA (band) for no apparent reason that I can see. (Edit) Actually, his further creation of M I A and its redirection to M.I.A. (artist) shows that the claim that I made above is exactly correct, and so I have moved this article back. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 22:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I really hope this debate moves a little outside diehard punk rock fans of this act with apparently little knowledge of wikipedia. That notable artist is also credited as such on her album, so it was moved to that article. What is this act credited as on the sleeve of its LP on the label being used to assert its notability here? MIA . What does the label call the band? MIA. What does this recently added popmatters review of its one album call it? The same. Read WP:Naming conventions and WP:Assume good faith. ShimShem (talk) 06:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and even though this has little to do with the debate in question, I've just found that even the label Alternative Tentacles at the bottom of this page differentiates between its band (as MIA) and the artist (as M.I.A.). That in itself warrants the name change to MIA (band). ShimShem (talk) 08:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that "I really hope this debate moves a little outside diehard punk rock fans" comment seriously asserting that it's a bad thing for a deletion debate to feature opinions from people knowledgeable about a topic? Doesn't Wikipedia have a bad enough reputation from "I've never heard of it so it must not be notable" deletions already? --Stormie (talk) 09:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to include multiple non-trivial sources to warrant an article's existence here, otherwise we have nothing but what a particular group of people affiliated with a particular scene claim they've heard of. If those sources aren't present, the article should be changed to reflect what most reliable sources specifically on the band describe it as, which is what I've tried to do but have had my head bitten off for, or deleted. There are hardly any reliable sources on that article, and this seriously warrants a deletion. ShimShem (talk) 09:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, on the grounds of two releases on Alternative Tentacles, which is pretty much a textbook example of what WP:MUSIC means by "one of the more important indie labels". --Stormie (talk) 01:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment per WP:Bold - And of the preceding line "two or more albums..." of the guideline? Does that mean any recordings or just LPs? Does that include what allmusic and the AT label describe as an EP? One the label didn't see fit to include in its list of releases at the bottom of its page? As far as I can see they've released one album on it. ShimShem (talk) 06:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who defines an EP? Murder in a Foreign Place has 11 tracks, and AllMusic lists under "Main Albums." [44] And you've already been told that AT don't list it in their summary because it's out of print - it is mentioned in the page you linked, scroll down to 1984 and see "Murder in a Foreign Place EP, Alternative Tentacles (VIRUS 35)." --Stormie (talk) 09:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide reliable third party sources that say that is the reason they don't list it. I'm afraid all I'm reading is WP:Original research with nothing but an Allmusic article and the label page that says an MIA release in 1984 on AT is an EP and not an LP, which clearly fails what the guideline 5 on WP:Music is referring to with the word "albums", and a label and popmatters review of the band's Lost Boys LP in 2001 that calls the band MIA. Assuming the label is notable, I still don't see how an allmusic article on said band, as I stated in my nom, is enough to establish any of the criteria for wiki notability.ShimShem (talk) 09:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ok currently we have as sources the labels bio of the band which is not a third party source, two primary sources [45] and [46], a popmatters and allmusic review of one "MIA" LP Lost Boys, (which popmatters describes as a "compillation"), a blog and two sources concerned with the death of a member, and not specifically about the band. [47], [48] and [49]. We have one allmusic bio [50] that is the only source specifically on the band that could be an rs and that's it, but even its naming of the band has been discredited. An EP does not qualify as an album here, it fails criteria 5 of WP:Band, and all other criteria currently, and rather than arguing for its notability over a technicality, I think it would make much more sense to create an article for Mike Conley and move whatever information from reliable third party sources present to that article and redirect this page there. MIA can be mentioned on that page, although I don't know how long that article would survive either. That is my suggested compromise for now, based on what I've been given to work with.ShimShem (talk) 11:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not going to attempt a point by point rebutal, but I think we need to look at the big picture. Agreed by all (I believe) we have a 3rd party bio, a review of a 30+ song album by a notable indie label, and an article about the death of the lead singer, and within that article it discusses the notable (small n) activity of the band, including the fact that it toured in the US and Canada. Guidelines are just that, guides to help us answer the question is it notable. IMHO the totality of the picture is that the band's Notable (capital N).--Cube lurker (talk) 15:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking at the bigger picture, to me it just seems like the band is mentioned in passing on articles about Mike Conley, who could be Notable (big N) enough to warrant a page. I know this is getting long, but the band really doesn't meet Criteria 4 of WP:Band either which asks for non-trivial coverage of a national or international tour. IMHO, I don't see how or think the notability of the band MIA has been established.ShimShem (talk) 15:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply In regards to the question MIA or Mike Conley, I see it in the reverse that you do. His notability is largely based on his membership in the band. The article on his death is focused on the fact that the singer of MIA had passed.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Yeah I know and I don't see it that way, considering the articles concern themselves with explaining who Mike Conley was as well what MIA was, but largely focus on what friends say Conley achieved and his flirtations with the band. They are not specifically on the band or its achievements. Even source says he was more associated with the band Naked soul to the writer than to MIA. Merely claiming a band was notable in a scene (on here or on source on an individual affliated with it) doesn't automatically demonstrate that it was. ShimShem (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request. ShimShem, could you please stop hacking the article until the Afd is closed? It does your case no good to change Murder in a Foreign Place from an LP to an EP--it's 11 tracks, for goodness sake! [51] Someone has to clean up the damage to the article after all. Gaohoyt (talk) 19:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily meets WP:MUSIC through releases on Alternative Tentacles, Allmusic review and touring. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 20:48, 29 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. Tan ǀ 39 16:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tremere[edit]

There is no evidence of notability, no references independent of White Wolf (or "unofficial" fan-based material), and the article consists primarily of in-universe description. This should be transferred to the White Wolf wiki and deleted here for this lack of notability. --Craw-daddy | T | 15:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 15:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to a more general article on the clans and groupings in these games which can be written from a real-world perspective. For such a popular RPG world there have to be articles and interviews etc. with the designers talking about their creation, which would help with the real-world perspective. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep the article definitely needs better references but, if memory serves it was used independent of "White Wolf" for the Ars Magica game (as I remember it Ars Magica was produced by someone other than "White Wolf" and then appropriated. Some coverage exists in non-white wolf sources (Spokane Spokesman-Review - NewsBank - Jul 27, 1996, Bangkok Post - Factiva, from Dow Jones - Apr 20, 2005, Computer Gaming World - AccessMyLibrary.com - Apr 6, 2004, and Star-Herald Saturday, June 29, 2002. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep considering that the remaining sects of this in-game universe also exist. You can't take one away without addressing the others. I would be more open to a discussion of an AfD on the combined groups together. Trusilver 21:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kowloon Nine Heads Rodeo Show[edit]

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AfDing this article is not the solution and the stated reason is not convincing/valid. You might want to add ((Notability)) on the article page? --Efe (talk) 03:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - a google news search produces 0 results, so the subject doesn't appear to be notable. Have a look at the general notability guideline.--PhilKnight (talk) 05:13, 23 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, —Sean Whitton / 15:21, 27 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#A7, no assertion of notability, as recommended by Juliancolton. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hing Potter[edit]

Non notable, no references. No hits on Google. Pretty much a hoax. Fails WP:N, WP:V, WP:REF, and WP:HOAX. S_RX 15:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a hoax (it appears to be a COI post by this Hing Potter). But it certainly fails to assert notability. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, A7. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 15:44, 27 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TitleTown USA[edit]

Non-notable segment of cable TV show. Contested prod. Hippo (talk) 01:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. You said it Dad (talk) 01:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Merge to List of SportsCenter segments and specials (where there is already an entry for TitleTown USA). This one is gonna be tough. At its heart, TitleTown USA is nothing more than a vapid stir-the-pot publicity campaign by an American TV network. But, reliable sources covering the campaign exist - in particular, the cities nominated as "TitleTown" seem to be taking an interest in being nominated. And, that said, a whole lot of those sources are from the 20 nominated cities (thus not independent / disinterested; there's a civic boosterism aspect to a lot of the coverage). Candidly, I'm not sure how the core policies shake out here. Thoughts? Townlake (talk) 04:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Taking Townlake's comment into consideration, I think there is a good deal of potential for notability in the immediate future. For now, the article needs a lot of work, but I am fairly sure a lot more information will become available as the segment progresses. Eternalmonkey (talk) 06:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My concern is that while it is an interesting enough segment to watch, is it really something anyone will remember in a month or two when it's all over? After all it's just a segment. Hippo (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As your link illustrates, notability isn't temporary. If it's notable today, it's notable forever for our purposes. That's part of the challenge here. Townlake (talk) 18:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was really focusing on the second part of the paragraph in the link: "... articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future." Hippo (talk) 01:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good point. Townlake (talk) 04:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note An editor removed the AfD and notability tags from the article a few hours ago; I just put them back. Townlake (talk) 04:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable. Per nom. Tosqueira (talk) 02:06, 25 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, —Sean Whitton / 15:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable segment of a TV show. Fails WP:RS and WP:V. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 15:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Hippo's argument of premature assertion of notability. Haven't seen any substantial changes to the article in the past few days, the competition (and its format) "penetrating" the market in rejecting thirty thousand nominees is unlikely to have had a lasting effect. Stock promotion campaign. Ottre (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of SportsCenter segments and specials. We cover it there so might as well point people to the right place. --Rividian (talk) 23:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The page is now redirecting to Green Bay, Wisconsin. I've already filed one AIV report on the page that was declined, and I don't know how to undo the redirect, so not really sure how to proceed. Townlake (talk) 17:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TarHippo. Not notable now, not notable in the future. Cmadler (talk) 15:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not really notable. It's just an ESPN gimmick, like the "Live Show" in a few weeks. Besides, Green Bay (not ESPN) owns the trademark to "Titletown USA" [52] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghettoshark (talk • contribs) 21:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Born Loco[edit]

Non-notable musical entry. Appears to fail WP:MUSIC, definitely does not pass WP:RS Ecoleetage (talk) 02:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'm gonna have to say, close to a keep, but not quite yet. Their main claim to fame, WP:MUSIC wise, is getting a song on to a Dutch horror movie. However, the only reliable sources I can find is from their own myspace bio, or a reprint of their bio on other websites, [53], [54], which by the way is where 95% of the info for this article comes from, verbatim I might add. When it comes to European metal, the Lords of Metal website seems to be the only one who's references appear to stand up in these AfD's, similar to Allmusic.com. Born Loco do have independent reviews there, [55], [56], [57], but that's it. All the rest I found looks as though they were written as listener reviews. WP:MUSIC#C1 call for multiple non-trivial published works. I can find only 1, the Lords of Metal ones. So hence, close but still a delete. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:52, 21 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, —Sean Whitton / 15:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Norm Nixon Jr.[edit]

College athlete, has not "competed at the highest level" of amateur sports per WP:ATHLETE. Actor with a single non-leading role, fail WP:ENTERTAINER. Steve Carlson^Talk 02:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:51, 21 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, BJ^Talk 19:42, 26 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, —Sean Whitton / 15:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question exactly how has he not competed at the highest level of amatuer sports since he is a college basketball player?--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The highest level of amateur sports would be competing in the NCAA finals tournament, being chosen to play on an all-star team, or setting a league record. There are way too many college athletes out there to warrant an article for every single one of them, unless they stick out in some particular way. Nothing personal! Steve Carlson^Talk 04:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No offense taken, just seeking information. Interesting interpretation (at least to me) that the "highest level" rule would mean only the NCAA Finals tournament. If we took that "highest rule" interpretation of the pros, then only NFL players in the Super Bowl would qualify. I don't think that's what was meant... but it is something to think about!--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak deletePer[58] he played on a total of 2 minutes in his last 7 games and rarely was a starter. Wikipedia has vague notability guidelines, just as the US Constitution has vague rules, but Wikipedia has no Supreme Court to make the final call. We have the unlikely possibility of consensus on the discussion page of a guideline, and we have AFD, where editors can assert their idea of what "highest level of amateur sport" means. I am opposed to blanket granting of inherent notability to every one of the thousands of men and women who put on a college jersey each year, or who had 30 seconds on the basketball court in 1930. I also disagree with the previous commentor who restricts it to the "college all star team" (does it even exist?) and the NCAA finals (only 2 teams, or all 16?) or "setting a league record" (what if the record only held for 1 month i 1882? This article presents no sources other than to say the man played for his college team, which basically does not show satisfaction of WP:N. The guideline needs to be made more explicit. Edison (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basketball is a professional sport in the USA. It only makes sense to invoke "highest level in amateur sport" when there is no professional level. Exceptions always possible, but not for someone playing only a few minutes, as Edison above claims - Nabla (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Glenn, The Chalkguy[edit]

Subject fails to meet notability guidelines, tagged since last month without changes Movingboxes (talk) 07:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:47, 21 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, —Sean Whitton / 15:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources listed; appears to fail WP:BIO. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:15, 1 August 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 sources were never provided. Wizardman 22:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3 Doors Down (1997 album)[edit]

I searched Google and could not find any sources that this album even exists. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL (talk) 07:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any relevant info into 3 Doors Down / Early years (1996-2000). Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk"
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced. Not notable. --Wolfer68 (talk) 03:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This is a notable band with a reasonably good band article. Their other albums meet notability criteria and have articles. While one could merge the information on this album into the band article, I think there is an argument on reasons of space and organisation to keep it separate. Thus, I am tempted to suggest this album article, while it needs clean-up and referencing, should be kept. Bondegezou (talk) 16:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But where is the source that this album actually exists? --Wolfer68 (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Appears to be a demo from here: "Meanwhile, the songs kept coming, and in 1997 3 Doors Down recorded some demos. They pressed a CD to sell at gigs, and fans flocked out to see them live, numbering more than 2,000 per show." Similar story here. I'll have to dig around for a proper reliable source, but the verdict is that it was a self-produced demo CD. 81.51.89.187 (talk) 18:03, 23 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, —Sean Whitton / 14:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whether 3 Doors Down is a notable band is 110% irrelevant. The WP:MUSIC criteria says the following; "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." Unless this demo has had significant independent coverage in reliable sources, then it cannot be kept. In my opinion, the one vote as a weak keep above is invalid since there is no reasoning which adheres to WP:MUSIC criteria. LuciferMorgan {talk) 17:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It is accepted that arguments based on how information is organised over multiple articles is valid. There is appropriate material for Wikipedia here: the question is where to put it, in its own article or in the band article. Bondegezou (talk) 09:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a notable album by a notable band. While the album was never released on a major label, that alone does not keep it from being notable. Furthermore the success of the bands other albums, only has helped the notability of this album through the years --T-rex 00:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tell us why this demo is notable and provide valid evidence - factual information as concerns this demo, proving it has had "significant independent coverage" would actually make your vote valid. Until then, I actually feel this vote is invalid since it has no basis in WP:MUSIC criteria - WP:MUSIC criteria deems demos as "generally non-notable" unless they've had "significant independent coverage", irrelevant of the success future albums have had. Before voting, it'd be great if people actually read the notability guidelines. Votes to oppose without any specific reasoning aren't accepted at FAC without specific reasoning, so I don't see why a vague keep should be accepted here either. LuciferMorgan (talk) 00:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with everything the guy before me "T-rex" just said. I actually think this article should be expanded. 3 Doors Down's website probably has info on it. Tezkag72 (talk) 21:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable album. No sources to confirm any facts. Fails WP:N, WP:M, and WP:V.Undeath (talk) 19:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it has already been said: we don't cover demos like that. Punkmorten (talk) 10:05, 2 August 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, defaults to keep. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Podbharti[edit]

not notable... no credible references...ChiragPatnaik (talk) 09:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced, orphaned article. Only found a single 3rd party reference which does not meet the "significant coverage" that WP:N requires.--Rtphokie (talk) 12:48, 25 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, —Sean Whitton / 14:58, 27 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, Wizardman 21:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. The only reference I could find was this article in a publication I've never heard of. Pburka (talk) 01:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC) Pburka (talk) 01:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, Fails notability .--SkyWalker (talk) 04:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Iam changing the vote to keep. As there is enough of reference in article to prove the article is notable. Here are more source to prove it [59], [60], [61]. I will search for more. --SkyWalker (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Simply because Google News doesn't list a website shouldn't mean its not notable. The website is from India, is in Hindi, and its natural that foreign publications won't talk about it. The page already cites noted website reviews/links. IMHO, the fact that its the first Hindi podzine from the subcontinent alone should make it notable enough.--Debashishc (talk) 13:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appears to have third party references now.--Boffob (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Reaffirm delete has someone noticed that this site is down as of now? Also please note one of the references is to agencyfaqs.com which says that one of the authors of this blog is Debashish Chakrabarty. The same gentlemen who pitched to several people to change their vote. A gaping case of Conflict of Interest perhaps? ChiragPatnaik (talk) 15:27, 11 August 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, defaulting to keep. Tan ǀ 39 22:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thaindian News[edit]

non notable... ChiragPatnaik (talk) 09:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are already over 20 English Wikipedia articles that use Thaindian News in their references. That's a good indication that they run stories that other outlets and portals don't. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well, it exclusively carries wire copy and as such is not a "news source"... more like a newsblog. On the flipside, a paper like the Metro newspaper does the same... So, that argument is a bit weak. Just because it has been quoted on wikipedia, doesn't mean it is significant. That would be a circular argument in the making...

That was just an example. This google search shows over 700,000 hits for "Thaindian News", which means that a lot of other websites are referencing it too. But I guess the real test is whether it meets WP:WEB. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:45, 21 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, —Sean Whitton / 14:57, 27 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. Tan ǀ 39 17:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Puzha.com[edit]

non notable ChiragPatnaik (talk) 10:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs (a lot of) work but Puzha appears to be a pretty big publisher in India with a fair amount of titles. I wouldn't call that 'non notable'. Channel ® 23:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a publisher, merely a online bookstore amongst other aspirations. Have a look at this About Us page. Yes, there are references in a newspaper. But such launches are dime a dozen in India (as I'm sure they are anywhere in the world). I agree cleanup is an alternative. But much rather delete and ask for a better contribution. The collection of links at the bottom is a blatant SEo attempt IMO ChiragPatnaik (talk) 18:18, 22 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, BJ^Talk 19:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not seeing anything that establishes notability. Its Alexa ranking is in the 6 digits as well. Wizardman 16:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Sean Whitton / 14:56, 27 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 the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

iTalkBB[edit]

Non notable. Most of the content promotes the company (the criticism section, though providing some neutrality, does not add to the companies notability) Ernestvoice (talk) 13:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources to establish the notability of the company, plus the criticisms section appears largely unsourced. —C.Fred (talk) 14:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Voidvector (talk) 16:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Voidvector (talk) 16:11, 21 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, BJ^Talk 19:26, 26 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, —Sean Whitton / 14:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per C.Fred. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Delta Goodrem b-sides and official remixes[edit]

Non-notable B-sides and remixes. All information is forked from respective singles. Fancruft. Please see the AfDs for Garbage B-sides and List of Coldplay's b-sides. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to state why the list and songs are notable. Bidgee (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable list, doesn't cover anything that can't be placed in a discography article. Sonuvafitch (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge B-sides have become a common feature on an artist's discography page. If we are going to delete this article, may as well merge the content into Delta Goodrem discography

Peter2012 (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B-sides are discouraged in discographies. You won't (or shouldn't) find any B-side lists in any featured discographies. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 13:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 20:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep, a discriminate list of verifiable information. Discouragment is from a proposed guideline that has not been reaccepted as far.Yobmod (talk) 13:30, 25 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, —Sean Whitton / 14:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable list. JIP | Talk 17:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on lack of notability and accumulating precedence. Drewcifer (talk) 09:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Battle of Lake Erie. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle of Lake Erie (Put-in-Bay)[edit]

It's time this article went away. It duplicates the subject of the article Battle of Lake Erie; Much of it is blatant POV; since it lacks in-line citations, much of it also appears to be OR; and what little remains is almost unsalvageably poor grammar and vocabulary. HLGallon (talk) 14:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The article is a clear WP:content fork for a much older and much better written Battle of Lake Erie. I don't even think that there is any sourced info in this one that is not already in Battle of Lake Erie, so there is really nothing to merge here either.
Delete It pains me to see such a long article removed, but as was said above, much of this is presently available in the Battle of Lake Erie article. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Battle of Lake Erie - this is nothing but an odd fork --T-rex 00:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 10:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep or merge The article nominated has much more detail than the article suggested for preservation. The latter deals with the whole naval campaign Lake Erie, whereas the Put-in-Bay article is mainly converned with the battle. The article under discussion needs wikifying and providing with references: I presume there are books on this: either - lack fo references is not a ground for deletion, only verifiability. The description is far too detailed to be the result of original research in the sense meant in WP: the author almost certainly has a source: he has merely failed to cite it. tag as unreferenced. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unsourced WP:POVFORK, dedicated to eulogising the 'brave American' side against the "unjust" British. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is massively biased, and has few citations. Borg Sphere (talk) 11:56, 28 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 into Tori Amos discography. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tori Amos B-sides[edit]

Non-notable B-sides. All information is forked from respective singles. Fancruft. Please see the AfDs for Garbage B-sides and List of Coldplay's b-sides. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 17:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose: A very informative article, one that took a lot of work and time to put together. There's nothing particularly wrong with this article in my opinion except that it's unsourced, but honestly, there is nothing inaccurate about any of the information there. A far cry from fancruft if I ever saw one. Samuel Grant (talk) 23:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EFFORT is an argument to avoid. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 08:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of arguments, how about you elaborate a little bit on why this is such a glaring example of content that shouldn't be on Wikipedia, as I'm hardly seeing your viewpoint. Samuel Grant (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a "glaring" example, but, per WP:HARMLESS, not being "glaring" does not have anything to do with notability and content forking. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 21:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose or Merge: I agree with Samuel Grant that the article is informative and doesn't merit complete deletion. If the subject's notability doesn't merit a separate article, perhaps merging the B-sides list into the discography page as a hidden section is a solution (see my sandbox). Amos is noted for having an extensive catalogue of B-sides and this list on Wikipedia is the only such list I'm aware of. At the very least, they are relevant enough to include on the discography page, the inclusion of which would do no harm.--Pisceandreams (talk) 02:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B-sides are discouraged on discography articles, and WP:NOHARM is an argument to avoid. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 11:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are B-sides discouraged for artists who have 100+ of such titles? I can understand deleting a list of an artist who has a handful, but honestly, this is a very well-put together article on an extensive topic whose only problem is being unsourced. I really don't find simply rebutting arguments with links to guidelines all that productive, either. Guidelines are flexible. The question we should be asking is: is this article of sufficient quality and does it provide information that is warranted of inclusion? I have a hard time understanding your claim of "fancruft." There is nothing that isn't informative to all sorts of people, not just fans, and nothing reeking of fanboyism; in fact, it's the opposite of such, providing verifiable facts that often can't easily be found. If you ask me it would be a real shame to see this list go, and another display of silly bureaucracy and hyper-pedantic-ness that is unfortunately so rampant on this site. Samuel Grant (talk) 18:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose or Merge: I continue to stand by this, as well as continue to agree with Samuel Grant. I fail to see the need to delete this information, particularly because a section for B-sides is featured in the Wikipedia's Discography Template, in addition to the fact that not only does the discography article for Depeche Mode include a B-sides section, the article has featured list status. Like Samuel Grant said, the article may be in need of improvement, or may be in need of merging, but it does not warrant complete deletion. --Pisceandreams (talk) 19:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Alice in Chains discography is another example of a discography page that includes B-sides AND has featured list status. If this separate B-sides article must be deleted, then the B-sides should be merged into the artist's discography page, as is the case with other artists.--Pisceandreams (talk) 12:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the work you're doing, Tenacious D Fan, trying to improve the quality of Wikipedia discographies (and although I'm not an official member of the Discography WikiProject I work toward the same goal as you), but I'm a bit confused as to what to believe with regard to the B-sides issue. On the Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style page, it states: "What should not be included: Tracklistings, B-sides, or any other description of the tracks on a release." However, as pointed out before, Wikipedia's Discography Template designates a sub-section for B-sides and a handful of artists' discographies (Alice in Chains, Depeche Mode, Hillary Duff, James Blunt, etc) include B-sides listings and those articles have featured list status. Are there others who can weigh-in on this issue?--Pisceandreams (talk) 00:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 20:15, 22 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, —Sean Whitton / 14:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cite or merge - It may be a well-constructed list, but unless someone puts references in it, I suggest merging the B-sides into the various album articles or the discography article. Black-Velvet 14:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I suggest merging the B-sides list into the Tori Amos discography article, in a manner such as that found in my sandbox. As a stand-alone list of B-sides, I'm not sure I understand what there is to reference. (?) --Pisceandreams (talk) 16:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable list. JIP | Talk 17:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or failing that Merge; but this information should be kept if at all possible. Lists of B-sides are valid content especially for artists, such as this one, notable for many such. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whereas I would normally oppose such sprawling lists, for a musician KNOWN for her B-sides, such a list is warranted. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 00:00, 29 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. Someone can make a redirect if they want to though. Wizardman 22:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hot n Cold[edit]

The article features no sources at all- it's just rumors, because the song has entered the Billboard chart! If someone wants to keep the charts positions, it would be better put them into the albums section!!! Olliyeah (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL Tavix (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The song satisfies WP:MUSIC the moment it reaches a major national chart, which it has. 193.111.24.186 (talk) 09:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's not true. Charting is fine, but per WP:MUSIC#Songs, "a separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". Reaching #88 due to increased downloads for one week and then gone, will not create a reasonably detailed article. --Wolfer68 (talk) 10:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to album article. It hasn't been released as a single and there's no info on it. Somno (talk) 04:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to album article. This hasn't been released as a single. Perry herself has not confirmed it and there's not much detailed informaton in the article. I agree with the above comment. Holiday56 (talk) 12:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Sean Whitton / 14:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wolfer68. — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:46, 27 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate Vision Strategists[edit]

Declined speedy. Not notable as fails WP:ORG. Sources listed don't mention article name. Fails WP:V Sting Buzz Me... 22:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there is something odd here that might be leading to some problems in obtaining sources - I don't think this company is called Corporate Vision Strategists it is either called Twelve Stars or Twelve Stars's Corporate Vision Strategists and the registered name is TwelveStars Communications Ltd. searching under those alternative names might provide adequete sourcing (if it does, don't tell me - ADD them to the article :-) --Allemandtando (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-The sources mention "Gold Mercury International" a previously deleted entry here. Article as is fails WP:V, and that's policy.--Sting Buzz Me... 22:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:V. Smells of fish by seeking to trade under the wing of Gold Mercury International - e.g. the references. I think we should take a cold hard look at Captain Euro whilst we're about it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We can do, it needs a lot of clean-up but there are sources for Captain Euro out there (notability not being inherited by this article of course). I've looked further into this company and the sources all seem to circular references to various elements of their confusing corporate structure. They claim to have done some work for Google in Spain but looking at Spanish language sources, I cannot find any mention of this company. I have some specialist marketing databases I can check tomorrow, maybe they will provide better results. --Allemandtando (talk) 23:11, 16 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, Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Minor tidy up done. I note that neither Alpherat Group, its parent nor Mercury Gold International have articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:51, 22 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, —Sean Whitton / 14:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, strongly, per nomination, and suggest speedy delete as blatant advertising. The article is also full of glittering generalities and marketing-style prose, vague to the point of evasiveness. As far as I am concerned anything written in the style is blatant advertising: Founded in the 1990s as Twelve Stars Communications and initially focusing on global brand advisory it later changed its name to reflect its increased focus on global scenario planning research and visioning work. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I had hoped that what I did to the article (above) might generate some improvement or linking, but the two red links that I created remain such. The lack of action leads me to believe in non-notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:36, 29 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toonami: Rare, Restored, and Recut[edit]

Per WP:MUSIC#Albums, compilations, remixes, demo tapes, etc. are not generally considered notable. ~~Arist is redlinked, and~~ No notability asserted. Was PRODed, but has been deleted through PROD before. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 01:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The artist, Joe Boyd Vigil, is definitely not a red link. However, there are no reliable sources for this album, so I say can it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 02:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... The way it's written, it reads like DJ Calus is the only artist and the rest are just credited for work on previous versions, and he at least is a red link. Guess that's more of an issue with the writing, though. Changed above. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 17:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:18, 16 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, Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:15, 21 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, —Sean Whitton / 14:08, 27 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 22:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corgi-Chihuahua[edit]

I cannot find any reliable sources discussing this hybrid. The current article consists of original research and original synthesis based on descriptions of each dog breed. Mangostar (talk) 22:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything demonstrating notability using Google, News, Books. The closest thing to a WP:RS is this web page, and it ain't that close. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. References should be improved, but there are some sources out there for the Chigi [62] although whether they are reliable is another question.--Deadly∀ssassin 20:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is wikipedia is going to do an article for every new "Designer breed" hybrid that people come up? Currently I am ~~Neutral~~ about this article because I don't know if this hybrid is notable. Lehoiberri (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this sort of article is nothing new [63]. I don't see why major or popular cross-breeds shouldn't be included to be honest. --Deadly∀ssassin 01:31, 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, Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is original synthesis at its worst. There are 12 sources, one about a Google search, but most about either Chihuahua, or about a Corgi, in an attempt to confirm that "this mixture was bound to happen". If you place a male and a female dog, each of a different breed, in the same yard, a mixture is bound to happen. Like Leho says, we can't do an article about every single hybrid out there. There's nothing cited so far that this is a notable hybrid. It's worth a mention in the article about Hybrid dogs, but that's it. Mandsford (talk) 11:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To the person who said "I don't see why major or popular cross-breeds shouldn't be included to be honest." Thanks for that. If this article is deleted simply because this hybrid is not a common one, then to be fair every hybrid dog article needs to be deleted. Question is, where do you draw the line? The Tibetian Mastiff has been around for thousands of years but just became AKC recognized a couple years ago. Should the article on it have been deleted prior to AKC registration? *Furthermore, as the author of the artice, having put a good amount of effort into looking things up, learning the way to code a Wikipedia article, and making it a point to use the dog breed template, I feel all I am hearing here is "this article stinks and the author should be beat to a pulp for being a moron" when what I think "here is the problem with the article, and how you can improve it" would be more in the sprit of Wikipedia. *Finally, I am a little confused about this 'orginal synthesis' thing. How can anything that is not plagarism not be original synthesis?WaxonWaxov (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In response to your comment on my talk page, I have no problem with articles on cross-breeds in particular. The problem is that there are no reliable sources that discuss this cross-breed. If you can find reliable sources, please do, and note that in this debate. "Original synthesis" just means there are no reliable sources available about this hybrid in particular. You simply took sources about each of the breeds individually (that is, sources about chihuahuas by themselves and sources about corgis by themselves) and synthesized (combined) them to draw your own conclusions about what characteristics the hybrid breed has. Mangostar (talk) 03:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mandford. Lehoiberri (talk) 18:39, 25 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, —Sean Whitton / 14:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mandsford. — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Mansford. Almost all the references are either about Corgi or about Chihuahua breeds individually. No significant coverage of the hybrid breed itself to show its notability. Nsk92 (talk) 14:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP~~-Heavily Edited by article creator All original thought, oops I mean 'original synthesis' has been removed. Non-portmanteu name section will remain as it is translation from Welsh to English to Spanish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WaxonWaxov (talk • contribs) 16:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just struck the !vote because you're only allowed one bolded vote comment. You already voted keep above. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
oops. 75.181.44.27 (talk) 01:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not every combination of two breeds is notable - there are hundreds of AKC-recognized breeds, and thus tens of thousands of possible pairings (even once you exclude the totally implausible ones). Lacking any documentation that this is a particularly popular pairing, and noting in particular the article's admission that "this hybrid is not very common", there's no reason to preserve it. Google searches for the article's title and Spanish dictionary entries for the words "dwarf" and "dog" don't cut it as sources. Zetawoof_(ζ) 01:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact there is apparently not a hundred puppy mills out there cranking these dogs out by the gross is NOT is good reason to delete the article. You mention the AKC. Does that mean every dog breed that is not AKC recognized should not have an article? If a person owns a particular hybrid and there is no article for it, then what exactly does it hurt if that person creates the article as long as there is no 'original synthesis' or copyright infringement? That is where this article currently stands. The Google search you mention is used to demonstrate that this hybrid is called a number of different portmanteau names, nothing more.--WaxonWaxov (talk) 04:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there doesn't appear to be any community of breeders of this dog is a good reason to delete the article, though, as is the fact that the article is an example of original synthesis (as there are no reliable sources to base it upon). Zetawoof_(ζ) 14:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait I would like at this time to request that the deletion process for this article be put on hold so I can attempt to find better sources for it. I just got a lead on a book that might be able to help me. Thanks. --WaxonWaxov (talk) 04:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this Googlewhack-worthy portmanteau which is essentially OR/SYN. If the breed becomes notable in the future, it won't be a problem to find actual reliable sources. Frank | talk 19:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Give me a break already Why is it I feel like the "cool kids" of Wikipedia are ganging up on me here? As I've said before, what is going to be the measuring stick here? AKC Registration? The fact that a breed is 'notable' because there is a lot of puppy mills out there produing the breed? If the former, then please say so "yes, AKC recognition is required for an article" and I will hapily support deleting every other hybrid article. If the later, "yes, only hybrids that are 'notable' will be tolerated" then I would to point out the AKC-recognized breed Nova_Scotia_Duck-Tolling_Retriever. You will note that not only was is nothing more than a hybrid breed FIVE years ago (prior to full AKC recognition) but is it also VERY uncommon. So by the rationale that a breed must be 'notable' should the Toller article be removed as well?--WaxonWaxov (talk) 04:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is ganging up on you here. I chose this AfD to participate basically at random. Speaking for myself, I would like to see the basic WP:N requirements to be satisfied: that is, significant coverage of this hybrid specifically by reliable sources, such as books, articles in newspapers and magazines, etc. Taking your example of Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever for comparison, such in-depth coverage of that breed is easy to find. E.g. a GoogleNews search for "Nova Scotia Duck-Tolling Retriever" gives 138 hits[64], several of them articles specifically about the breed itself, such as [65][66] and an entry in Encyclopedia Britannica [67]. The same search in GoogleBooks gives 143 hits[68], again including some specifically about the breed, such as [69][70]. By comparison, a GoogleNews search for "Corgi-Chihuahua" returns 10 hits[71], all of which appear to be passing mentions. The same search of GoogleBooks gives 5 hits[72], again none of which providing in-depth coverage of the breed. It seems pretty clear that "Nova Scotia Duck-Tolling Retriever" passes WP:N while "Corgi-Chihuahua" does not. If you can find other reliable sources that provide substantial coverage of the Corgi-Chihuahua hybrid, that these searches do not fish out, then great, otherwise the article will have to be deleted. Nsk92 (talk) 05:01, 29 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oleksandr Shchur[edit]

Unsourced article about football player and probably is a hoax. Any football sources in Ukraine and Russia don't know this player. Same article nominated to deletion in ru-wiki.Seelöwe (talk) 11:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Either a hoax or entirely non-notable. I did some google searching, both in English and in Russian, and did not find anything WP:RS coverage to indicate notability as a football player. On the other hand, I did find this Russian football fansite where one of the posters identifies himself as "Александр Щур"[73], a fan of Dinamo Kiev. Nsk92 (talk) 13:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:RS. --Jimbo^[online] 12:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 16:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jogurney (talk) 02:02, 29 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Engineering Design Team[edit]

Procedural nomination. Article was speedy deleted per CSD A7 (no assertion of importance). This was overturned per this DRV discussion. It was determined that the awards cited constitute an assertion of importance. Some concerns remain, however, about the suitability of the sources provided (a number are from college newspapers) and whether the group meets notability criteria. Possible merge targets may or may not be available. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete university clubs may have a few write-ups in their student newpaper. The fact that these basketball-playing robots don't have any other sources suggests non-notability. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment FWIW, The News-Gazette is not a college newspaper. Sure it's no Chicago Tribune, but it is the newspaper of the Champaign-Urbana area, not UIUC. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- After reading the full text in ProQuest, the News Gazette article is mainly about the 2008 robotics competition in general, which was held at UIUC. I don't think it has "Significant coverage" of the team, although it does mention the team's robots and the results along with minor details about the UIUC and UIC team's rivalry. I'd say the article provides good coverage on the event, but not specifically the teams. --Dual Freq (talk) 00:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep I think they are in fact a very well known team in these competitions. If the sources show the awards, that they are local or even cllege nwspapers should make no difference. DGG (talk) 02:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep (of course since I'm one of the authors). The question is what level of notability is required to have an article on wikipedia? Why is this so difficult? Of course we're not a household name, but when it comes to the events we participate in, I think people know us. And I'm not talking about 3 or 4 family members that just know us by default. We involve ourselves with more than what the newspaper references we have state, including organizing engineering events for high schools. But, we don't have a newspaper article, so we're not notable enough for Wikipedia. Lots of (probably more) notable people don't have newspaper articles simply because the newspapers either do or don't want to hear your story. Just like TV, they care about "ratings" as well and don't want to bore the average reader with some robotics team. I understand you can't have any and every one who wants to put their name on Wikipedia do so, but when did Wikipedia become a purist society of only extremely notable subjects? As a group that is 8 years old, only a couple months ago did we decide to start an article, mainly because there have been lots of people who wanted to know more about us, and for those that don't know us, Wikipedia provides an outlet for discovery. I, myself consider Wikipedia a site where I can go and look up a single subject and the next thing you know, I've got 20 tabs open because there's so much to discover, no matter what the topic may be. If the admins feel we're not notable enough for this site, we'll just have to live with it, but the word "notability" has so many meanings depending on who you are and where you are. PS: Thank you for allowing us to discuss this instead of noticing that our page had mysteriously vanished. Engineer4life (talk) 14:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as notable as Warpcon. Stifle (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Warpcon is a convention, this is one team. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't see notability or "Significant coverage" for this club/team of 20 or so college students established by the cited sources. The Competitions seem noteworthy, but I don't see anything about the club that meets WP:ORG. The one newspaper article is about the competition and mainly says they won it. That cited material saying who won could be easily covered in the articles for Jerry Sanders Creative Design Competition, University of Illinois at Chicago College of Engineering or whatever department in the college that this relates to. --Dual Freq (talk) 04:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What significant coverage is, is a question of interpetation, but I believe it is covered enough. Enough easily for WP:V. The rewards, and the sources make me believe that there is sufficient notability. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:19, 26 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, —Sean Whitton / 14:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is too little coverage of the team by independent reliable sources. A few articles in local newspapers is certainly not enough to pass WP:ORG. The awards at the robot competitions are not sufficiently significant either. Nsk92 (talk) 14:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nomination is procedural and talks of merger. Merger is not achieved by deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's correct. The nom is procedural but it is a bona fide deletion nom where merge is mentioned only briefly and non-specifically. The nom clearly outlines the possible deletion rationale. Nsk92 (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 19:43, 30 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steer clear[edit]

Previously speedied per WP:CSD#A7, but this no longer meets the criteria. Appear to be a signed band, but a search through Google and other sources reveals mentions on fansites such as Bebo, and few reputable sites to verify notability of this band. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: also another article on this band at Steer Clear band. I have redirected it to this one, but the previous version may contain information worth merging. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 23:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep: on the borderline, but have certainly played around the UK and Ireland (including Tower Records in Dublin) and also at SXSW, which sort of hits WP:BAND criteria 4. The problem is that all the sources are blogs, YouTube etc. which makes it difficult to source properly. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 23:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - coverage in reliable sources seems to be close to non-existent. I found this very short review on the BBC site. There is lots of blog buzz for the band, and with the SXSW appearance, they appear to be a fast up and coming band. However a single appearance in a festival without any coverage of that fact doesn't meet criterion 4 of WP:BAND. If some additional reliable sources can be dug up (I couldn't find anything more), then it would clear the notability bar. -- Whpq (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but gut for now. Just on the good side of notability, but WP:V is more important, and is hardly being met. Only verifiable material - verifiable by reliable sources - should remain. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:05, 26 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, —Sean Whitton / 14:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the basis of lack of coverage. Article isnt great quality so i dont think this is a great loss. --neon white talk 22:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a reference. It's a feature article about the band in News of the World (and perhaps there is more newspaper coverage?) which verifies some of the content, including that the band is touring Ireland and the UK. Maybe this pushes it into a keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:37, 30 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. Hasn't been 5 days but I think we can invoke WP:SNOW here. Wizardman 20:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Tintor[edit]

This player is not notable per the notability guidelines for baseball. Tintor has never played beyond Class A ball (two levels below the AAA standard). He has never been an all-star for his leagues and the closest thing to a notable award is one player of the week honor (which isn't notable). Metros (talk) 13:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. He's not a notable baseball player. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. and WP:WPBB#Players. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fort Myers Miracles players for 33 similar articles up for AFD review. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 22:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if by "similar", you mean "different in several significant ways". -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Never played AAA, never appeared in a minor league all-star game or received a notable minor league award. Spanneraol (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:WPBB#Players. BRMo (talk) 03:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet current notability guidelines for baseball players. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:11, 29 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. DS (talk) 14:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aquapsychosis[edit]

Seemingly a hoax, there seems to be no coverage of this condition anywhere on the internet as well as the doctor cited not being found. –– Lid^(Talk) 13:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nom. Non-admin closure. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Armstrong (disambiguation)[edit]

~~There doesn't need to be a disambiguation page for this, as there is only one entry.~~ StaticGull Talk 13:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retracting AfD nomination as the article now has multiple entries. StaticGull Talk 13:22, 27 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diablo: The Hell[edit]

Not notable as the article is about a user-made add-on for a video game. StaticGull Talk 13:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why send this to AfD? As far as I can see this is a speedy deletion job. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the bureaucracy :-). Software isn't allowed to be tagged with an A7. StaticGull Talk 13:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any reliable sources. Axl (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable video game mod. JIP | Talk 17:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable video game mod. has zero independent sources --T-rex 00:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per T-Rex, nothing here worth noting. JuJube (talk) 01:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to delete this article please at least merge it with Diablo: Hellfire article. There is already an external link to The Hell website. This game mod project is quite big and has a long history of development. It might be of interest for many old Diablo fans, especially after Diablo 3 announcement was made. I found this mod on Wikipedia too and I was really grateful for the information! Thanks in advance! CAH81 17:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I couldn't find an appropriate reference. If you can find one, please add it to the article. Axl (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by appropriate reference? If the website and both the forums are not enough references, what do you expect? A review from IGN or GameSpy? Well until we trademark it, that's not possible BUT that does not make the mod non-notable! This project has more work and effort included, than the work you've done deleting articles... ATPoseidon (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I mean a reliable source. Currently the article contains a single reference: to the creators' website. I have no doubt that the designers have worked very hard on this mod. However we need another source to demonstrate that this article is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Axl (talk) 09:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:21, 29 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. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jay and Seth vs. The Apocalypse[edit]

I am nominating this article for deletion because it is about a planned film based on a faux trailer -- see /FILM coverage. Filming has not begun, as seen by the "in-development" status at IMDb, so article does not yet warrant existence per the notability guidelines for future films. No prejudice against recreation if filming does begin, which is not a guarantee in the film industry. Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure. If you apply the letter of WP:NFF, then this film is not planned to go into production until next year ([74], [75]). But the faux trailer could perhaps (from what I've seen online) claim notability of its own, which might make this a special case. PC78 (talk) 14:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there could be an article about the trailer, then there could be a brief mention of the planned film there. In this case, though this is an article specifically about the film. I'm not sure if it is within compliance to radically change the contents of the article to talk about a different topic. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as article about the trailer, as there are more sources confirming its existence than IMDB. aside from the referenced article at Joblo.com, there are articles in Variety, Screening Log, Digital Spy, Empire Movies, Snarkerati.com, EW.com, AintItCool.com and many, many others... as well as the one at The Hollywood Reporter confirming that the above-mentioned trailer is being turned into a feature film by Mandate. For my money, this meets or exceeds the criteria at WP:NFF ~~completely~~ for the trailer. Let's prod it for expansion and improvement instead. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 20:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you supporting it as a film article or a trailer article, though? It doesn't meet WP:NFF because filming has not begun. There's been films that are anticipated to have begun, but they can be held off, like Nottingham. If we can treat this as a trailer article, fine, but it can't be a stand-alone film article if there is no guarantee that there will be a film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed (see above). Strong support as article about the trailer with inclusion above 'rumors' of the trailer being considered for a feature film. Always the oportunity later to create an article about the film. Great compromise. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 20:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Had to change my vote (above) for this particular article, as it fails under Wikipedia:NFF. However, I have created an article about the trailer itself HERE, expanding on the article about the potential film, and if/when the film is produced, we can easily link back. Nothing is lost and Wiki is improved. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With some terrific input from Erik, I created an article HERE about the "pre-trailer". I think i did a nice job, finding facts in about the trailer's history and the projected future film. I invite comments and suggestions. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 18:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Great job with the new article, but I don't see why it couldn't have been created on top of the present one. I think Erik was being a bit over-cautious above; I don't see anything wrong with changing the subject of an article where it is warranted, and it's not like this is really a different subject anyway, or like the old article had a lot of content to replace. In addition, if this article was to be deleted, then the new article would have to be moved here, as there would be no need to disambiguate with "(trailer)". Personally I would cut, paste & redirect the new article here, and assuming Erik is happy this AfD can then be withdrawn. PC78 (talk) 22:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really recall the specifics, but I think that page histories need to be kept organized. I've often requested ((db-histmerge)) for two articles with the same content, so I assume that the opposite is true in keeping page histories for not-quite-related topics separate. I hesitate to assume the likelihood of a film being made, considering the usual possible circumstances (especially with Apatow's crew having a lot of ideas in the making) and the possible 2008 Screen Actors Guild strike. If the film is made, I think it would be fair to say that the trailer information would be merged into it. I guess it seems problematic to have a film article → trailer article rather than vice versa. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too sure about page histories myself. I think they are merged in the event of cut & paste moves, but kept seperate where articles have evolved on their own. I don't think it applies here though, because this would be a straightforward merge. PC78 (talk) 23:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But wouldn't the merge then require a name change, as we have essentially two different (though related) subjects? One, we have an article about a trailer. Two, we have an article about a possible film that conflicts Wikipedia:NFF and Wikipedia:CRYSTAL. I was able to source a fairly comprehensive article about the trailer.. and glad to do so. But everything I was able to find about the proposed feature film was rumor and supposition. In order to pave the way for a (future) article about the (possible) film, I made sure to include the industry buzz about the hopes for the future. If the film is never made, the trailer article still has merit. If the film is made, a merge or redirect would be easy to set up. If the article in AfD is deleted without prejudice, it would be welcome back at such (future) time as there is more than rumor about its production. (And PS: I do not know the procedures for writing over an article that has been placed in AfD, so I took the easier path and created the new one.) Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 01:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the old or overwrite with the new... whatever is easiest. I was glad to do my part. This AfD aside, I feel grateful that you both gave such positive input to the work it inspired me to contribute. Thanks. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 01:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - much ado about what is (at the moment) nothing significant in its current state. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. The article in question at this AfD does not belong as it fails Wikipedia:NFF big time. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 05:08, 31 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 because nobody seems to support outright deletion of this article. Editorial options such as merge, redirect etc. should be discussed on the article talk page, not here. Sandstein 22:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vishnuism[edit]

Separate article as a sub-article to Vaishnavism was considered for merging into a section of Vaishnavism. Sufficient references given for a separate article. Consensus required as to deletion and re-direct with loss of references and material. Wikidās ॐ 12:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three options are being proposed

:# Merge - create a subsection that retains all material of this article in Vaishnavism article

# Delete - remove article as not notable

:# Part-merge - retain the article as a sub-article of Vaishnavism, (current situation) --Wikidās ॐ 12:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Wikidās ॐ 12:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by --Redtigerxyz (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not the right place to discuss this, but still Merge
- Vishnuism was a redirect to Vaishnavism as of 4 May. [76]
- Link to Merger discussion and counter-references challenging "Vishnuism is a sub-sect of Vaishnavism" Talk:Vaishnavism#Vishnuism_Merge.
- All info in Vishnuism is already merged in Vaishnavism. In fact, 4 May version of Vaishnavism has had all the info, that new article (former redirect) Vishnuism, formed on 4 May, claims as new info. The additional info is merged or challenged. 20 July version of Vaishnavism, when redirect was restored.
- [77][78][79]Links identifying Vishnuism and Vaishnavism, notably Britannica, dictionaries like Websters, thefreedictionary.com. Please note phrase "Vishnuism or Vaishnavism" phrase and NOT "Vishnuism is sub-sect of Vaishnavism"

Comment by Wikidās ॐ

While Vishnuism is often used as a replacement word of Vaishnavism, it is a sub-class to Vaishnavism, as it refers to a category of worshipers who suppose that Vishnu worship is higher then worship of Rama or Krishna within Vaishnavism. It is therefore a sub-branch of Vaishnavism. Other two sub branches are identified as (for example in Telugu) - as the "branches of Vaishnavism" — the Rama cult and the Krishna cult. Two distinct cults of Rama and Krishna are sub branches also see: p.11 97

Sri Vaishnavism is clearly a form of Vishnuism, and they are known as followers of Ramanujacharya. However followers of Vallabha, Nimbarka and Chaitanya are of Krishnaism (see: Complete list of sources for the subject:Wikipedia:WikiProject Krishnaism/Bibilography) - another sub-branch. Followers of Ramananda are called Ramandandis and are specifically focused on Rama worship as the highest form of worship. Thus they are also a separate branch. These are orthodox branches of Vaishnavism. Un-orthodox branches are for example tantric vaishnava schools.

Vaishnavism is only sometimes equated to Vishnuism because of linguistics, however first step in evolution of Vaishnavism was worship of Krishna and identification of him with minor vedic deity VishnuThe History and Culture of the Indian People/HARDY, Friedhelm E.: Krsnaism. In: The Encyclopedia of Religion 8 (Ed. Mircea Eliade) (1987)387/2 - 392/1/ Also see: Page 269-270 (G. Widengren (1997). Historia Religionum: Handbook for the History of Religions - Religions of the Present. Boston: Brill Academic Publishers, ISBN 90-04-02598-7),(KLOSTERMAIER, Klaus K. (2005). A Survey of Hinduism. State University of New York Press; 3 edition, p.206. ISBN 0791470814)

Just because some dictionary sources identify it as one we are obliged to maintain NPOV in this and not to present views that are only based on Tertiary sources. Please see PSTS. Our policies do not allow to proclaim one version or sects' view a definition to all other, as we have to maintain neutral point of view, where the definition has to account for many branches of Vaishnavism and definition of each branch without bias. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources, not just primary and certainly not on tertiary sources.

Probably the best secondary sources that clearly establishes the difference of the different sub-branches of Vaishnavism are:

Jan GONDA Vaisnavism and Saivism and Minor Religious Systems

Jan GONDA The Concept of personal god

RG BHANDARKAR, Vaishnavism and Saivism, Varanasi, 1965

MATCHETT, Freda: Krsna, Lord or Avatara? The relationship between Krsna and Visnu in the context of the avatara myth as presented by the Harivamsa, the Visnupurana and the Bhagavatapurana. (Curzon Studies in Asian Religion). Richmond 2001

Based on this and to comply with neutral point of view all schools of Vaishnavism (ie Rama/Krishna/Vishnu centered traditions) should be summarized in one article of Vaishnavism (summary style) and should have their respective sections without one single bias.

--17:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 23:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by --Redtigerxyz (talk) 13: 20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

A Survey of Hinduism By Klostermaier says that the first Vishnu was worshiped as Vasudeva Krishna and Narayana, but does not say "Vaishnavism is only sometimes equated to Vishnuism", this may be OR or a misinterpretation of the text.
I think Britannica is a well-respected encyclopedia, quoted in many wiki articles. We can't just ignore it? In form, my dear friend Wikidas who is the major contributor to Vishnuism has used Britannica as a reference in the article. Quoting from Britannica:

Vaishnavism: Hindu sect also called Vishnuism, or Viṣṇuism, Sanskrit Vaiṣṇavism, Main: worship of the god Vishnu and of his incarnations, principally as Rāma and as Krishna. It is one of the major forms of modern Hinduism—with Śaivism and Shaktism (Śāktism).

I request my friend Wikidas to please give the page nos. in Gonda, J. (1993). Aspects of Early Visnuism. Motilal Banarsidass Publ., which the articles first ref that explicitly says "Vishnuism is one of the branches of Vaishnavism". Also, if possible, those in Vaisnavism, Saivism and Minor Religious Systems By Ramkrishna G. Bhandarkar. Thanks.

Merge: Per Redtigerxyz. There are numberous sources that show that Vishnuism and Vaishnavism refer to the same thing; it is the worship of Vishnu as the Supreme God. Krishnaism or Gaudiya Vaishnavism is just a sub-sect which swaps Vishnu with Krishna just like the many sub-sects of Vaishanvism. Gizza^Discuss ^© 01:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Vaishnavism article, since it is, at most, a part of Vaishnavism. ~ priyanath ^talk 21:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the Gonda source clearly establishing Early Vishnuism as a separate notable subject mater. It further points out to the differences in the associated concepts how it evolved from being centered on Vishnu to early references to a different type of worship of Vishnu-Kṛṣṇa and yet again (p. 163) ( Gonda, J. (1993) (first ed. 1969). Aspects of Early Visnuism. Motilal Banarsidass Publ., ) Whereas there are misconceptions on the subject and a common ignorance of the matter he clearly points out as to amalgamation of the other traditions with Vishnuism, such as Krishnaism and Ramaism of Bhagavatism. The notion and the source on the early Vishnuism such as Gondas clearly defined a need of a separate subject of an article. Wikidās ॐ 10:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same page talks of merging of the other traditions "IN" Vishnuism. This means, now Krishnaism and Ramaism is a subset of Vishnuism, and NOT Vishnuism, Krishnaism and Ramaism merging into Vaishnaism. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Amalgamation is not the merging. ( Gonda does say merging in, amagalmation is often used to describe earlier cults of Gopala and Vaasudeva into Bhagavatism) Few traditions according to literary sources amalgamated within Bhagavatism, prior to merging in Early Vishnuism, ~~therefore~~ Vishnuism as entity is a valid entity ~~and is a sub -branch of what is common version of Vishuism~~ and existed independently from others forming current Vaishnavism.Wikidās ॐ 14:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gonda uses "merge".--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gonda does not use the word Vaisnavism as well. Even in this book, he is talking about early Visnuism. Lets look for a replacement from other reliable source. as for example Gavin Flood also is using merging as "In its early stages, Vaisnavism represents the merging of the religions of a number of different social groupings from both north and south India." He clearly states that Vishnu become 'fused' with other, originally independent deities. An Introduction to Hinduism Flood p 117. That means that there is Vishnuism as a historical fact that is different from what today is represented by Vaishnavism, that is a merge of many traditions. Wikidās ॐ 14:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many books just use Vishnuism and Shivaism , and do not use Vaishnavism and Shaivism [80].Why should Gonda use Vaisnavism, if Vishnuism is being used for consistency purposes?Redtigerxyz (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we trust "Gonda does not use the word Vaisnavism", then how was the book used to support the statement "Vishnuism is one of the branches of Vaishnavism", the first statement in the Vishnuism article, Isn't that a contradiction? This proves clear OR or misinterptretation.Redtigerxyz (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly because he is talking about EARLY Vishnuism, not about Vaishnavism existing that does not fit or is not covered by the definition. Not only that even at historic times, Vishnuism was not a synonym of all other groups that merged into it at an early stage, and it is not the same as the groups that are called Vaishnavism(s) now. I guess the key to the answer is that Historic Visnuism is different to what is now commonly called Vaishnavism. Wikidās ॐ 15:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As this is a hair splitting exercise, I think that both sides of the argument must provide more reliable sources to back up their claims. Of course though, I always want more reliable sources to back up claims. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 05:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move and keep. After looking over the above sources, it is absolutely clear from sources that Vishnuism is considered a separate tradition, that historically and later on became an umbrella or one merged tradition. However it should be moved to Historical Vishnuism as per Gonda, J. (1993) (first ed. 1969) Aspects of Early Visnuism. Article has to be expanded and sourced to reflect this.Wikidās ॐ 07:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I differ to disagree with "it is absolutely clear from sources that Vishnuism is considered a separate tradition" when i am providing explicit references like Britannica, which clearly state Vishnuism as a synonym for Vaishnavism. I still think, we Merge and redirect Viishnuism to Vaishnavism.
- Gonda does NOT say that Vishnuism is sub-section of Vaishnavism. Another Gonda's book "Visnuism and Sivaism: A ComparisonBy J Gonda". [http://books.google.co.in/books?id=k8y-vKtqCmIC&pg=PA31&dq=visnuism+vaishnavism&lr=&client=firefox-a&sig=ACfU3U2vCYwov-Yj-Pp2X-SdfCniE_iO5A

Images of Indian Goddesses: Myths, Meanings and Models By Madhu Bazaz Wangu] explicitly tells us to refer to it to compare Vaishnavism and Shaivism. Why would the author do so if Vishnuism and Vaishnavism are different.

- [http://books.google.co.in/books?id=7sgUAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA11&dq=visnuism&lr=&client=firefox-a&sig=ACfU3U27FUQcq6jfgV1DIoasCo-bbBKKDw#PPA11,M1

The Arts of Nepal By Pratapaditya Pal] calls the sect Vishnuism, but uses Vaishnava for the follower, a word which used for Vaishnavism.

- [http://books.google.co.in/books?id=1nSmvha3YC4C&pg=PA109&dq=visnuism+vaishnavism&lr=&client=firefox-a&sig=ACfU3U0cdT6GzWn49To3s3nj8188-wziCg#PPA56,M1

Towards a Christian Pastoral Approach to Cambodian Culture By Gerard Ravasco p.56] mentions Vaishnavism and lists the alternate spellings, one being Vishnuism as a footnote. p.109. For consistency, authors seem to use 1 spelling "Vaishnavism" or "vishnuism". Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Historical or early Vishnuism is different to what now is called Vaishnavism as in Sri Vaishnavsim, Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Etc Wikidās ॐ 15:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's abundantly clear from many reliable sources provided above that Vishnuism is an alternate term for Vaishnavism, or possibly an earlier term for Vaishnavism, but not something completely different. This should be a simple redirect. ~ priyanath ^talk 20:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are there any sources for an individual Vishnuism article other than Gonda? If there are other sources, please do provide them. As is, this is boardering on interpreting sources. I can understand Wikidas' arguements above, but they lack multiple reliable sources. Also, the weight of Redtigerxyz's reliable sources is heavy. Concerning Vishnuism, are there other sources? If not, this page should be merged with Vaishnavism. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another Source Equating Vishnuism and Vaishnavism

Gnosis: A New Translation with Selected Letters (2006) by Frithjof Schuon

"Vishnuism, or Vaishnavism, is a theistic sect of the Hindu religion whose members worship the God Vishnu as the Supreme Deity" p. 154 ~ priyanath ^talk 00:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the case is complicated by the fact that often modern Vaishnavism term is translated as Vishnuism, however I will bring up references clearly indicating that Vishnuism (as worship of Vishnu) became part of what is now Vaishnavism, thus supporting my conclusion that it is to be moved to Historical Vishnuism. I will clean up the article in the meantime. Wikidās ॐ 11:03, 1 August 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Hogarth[edit]

Contested PROD. Hasn't played in a fully professional league and so fails WP:BIO. Mattythewhite (talk) 11:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:Athlete. Lacks reliable sources too. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:ATHLETE. I've also blocked the article's creator for making personal attacks on editors in the article. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. --Jimbo^[online] 23:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 16:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hasn't played professionally. Doesn't meet WP:FOOTYN. And let's face it ... he wasn't good enough to start on the worst team in League 1 ... oh well, perhaps he's good enough for League 2. :) Nfitz (talk) 07:01, 31 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taufeer[edit]

Delete. Non-notable website and company. No independent third-party references. Bordering on spam/advertising. WWGB (talk) 11:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless reliable sources are cited to verify facts and establish notability. If these can be found, the article still requires modification to make it more neutral. Wiw8 (talk) 11:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant advertising: a company established in 2008 to provide consumers with the necessary information to easily research, find, compare and buy anything online or offline, in a shorter time and for the best price! - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:RS and WP:N. Possible WP:SNOW. The references provided in this article clearly demonstrate that this building is notable. Although buildings aren't inherently notable - my local post office would be lucky - this one meets the requirements. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1430 K Street[edit]

A twelve story building. And... err... that's it. Absolutely no indication why this is important or significant, and the only sources are the usual two building directories. They are directories, we are not. Guy (Help!) 10:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is the only guideline I could find in relation to the notability of buildings like this. On the other hand, it hasn't recieved significant coverage in non-specialist sources like newspapers etc, which I'm sure buildings like the empire state building recieve at least once a month.--Serviam (talk) 11:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topics are not required to be important or significant. But, as it happens, this building is significant as the first in a new real estate trend noticed by the New York Times. I have updated the article accordingly. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I also expanded it more by adding a source from the Washington Post and news as it headquarters Lulac.--S_RX 14:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Asserts notability through sources. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 15:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep — The building in question clearly exists. Nothing else matters. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is rather interesting reasoning. I'm fairly certain I can prove my house exists. Does that make it notable? Resolute 21:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course it doesn't make it "notable", whatever that means. But "notability" is irrelevant. All that matters is existence. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 22:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Uh, no. This is simply wrong. There is a Wikipedia guideline that demands notability. It is not sufficient to prove that something exists to justify an article. Reyk _YO! 23:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Remember that Kurt edits a cloudcookoolander version of Wikipedia in which by ignoring the long-standing consensus of other users, he can change that consensus. He's perfectly aware of what you're pointing out, and is consciously defying it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I've never had anything to do with this Kurt Weber person before so naturally I prefer to believe he's merely mistaken, rather than bad or stupid. Reyk _YO! 23:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm aware of the guideline you refer to. It's irrelevant. It's wrong. It's totally non-prescriptive, and we are under no obligation to heed it. What the so-called "rules" say is irrelevant; all that matters is what's best for Wikipedia. Please explain how removing this article would be best for Wikipedia. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        What's best for Wikipedia is to not indiscriminately include every single thing that exists. The rule is right. BTW, you'll notice I argued to keep this particular article, but I don't always vote to keep everything. Some things we are better off without. Reyk _YO! 00:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually, what would be best would indeed be to include everything that exists. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No, no it wouldn't. And you should be aware that if you continue to push this opinion, you'll be arguing against policy, overwhelming consensus and common sense. In short, you're quite wrong. Reyk _YO! 00:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Arguing against so-called "policies" doesn't make one wrong, because they're totally non-binding and totally non-prescriptive. Sometimes they're wrong themselves, in which case arguing against them makes one right. Same goes for consensus--arguing against consensus does not make one wrong; rather, arguing against consensus is how consensus gets changed when the existing consensus is wrong. Really, I think you don't understand how Wikipedia works. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        *wonders why people still take Kmweber seriously* JuJube (talk) 01:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Suffice it to say, Kurt is consciously ignoring WP policy (in a civil, non-disruptive, and somewhat futile way) for what he feels are good reasons. Pointing out the policy is unnecessary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:RS. Notability does not appear to be in doubt. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep- per SRX's expansion, which barely bumps this to notable status, but I would not be using this AFD discussion as a precedent for keeping articles on any other twelve-storey building in the world. Reyk _YO! 23:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly merge to condominium. This is noteworthy as the beginning of a major trend, but probably doesn't have any role other than as a part of that trend as far as I can tell. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As said above, notable not for its architecture but for its financial structure. DGG (talk) 08:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A couple of non-trivial articles in prominent newspapers establish notability. Axl (talk) 19:29, 28 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. As long as each Miss USA winner has an article then in order to avoid Systemic bias I can see no reason why each winner of Most Beautiful Girl in Nigeria shouldn't have an article also. I'm sure they garner much media attention in Nigeria, though it may not be as easily availiable as its US counterpart. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 20:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Suinner[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ann Suinner

This is a string of articles about individuals whose sole claim to notability is having won a beauty pageant--not a valid reason in my opinion. Inclusion seems inconsistent with numerous guidelines including notability (entertainers), people notable only for one event, and what Wikipedia is not. Would like community views on this. Bongomatic (talk) 10:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - As much as I dislike 'beauty' pageants, the Most Beautiful Girl in Nigeria (MBGN) is a national competition and fairly high profile. Also, I found a reliable source about her [81]. Black-Velvet 10:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Falls under Wikipedia:WikiProject Beauty Pageants.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The notability criteria of Wikiprojects are not Wikipedia guidelines. All of the nominees must meet the WP:BIO notability standard. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We can always hope that consensus will change on things like this. I doubt it has, but I personally wouldn't oppose the change. DGG (talk) 08:33, 28 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 The Great Khali. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ranjin Singh[edit]

Non-notable wrestling manager. -- iMatthew _T.C. 10:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ENTERTAINER (which I assume is what the subject falls under), hasn't received any awards or done anything notable outside of professional wrestling. He hasn't exactly competed at the very top of it either, so he fails WP:ATHLETE as well. Black-Velvet 10:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 12:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Great Khali, merge any information that is not already mentioned there. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to The Great Khali or to the 2007-2008 section of The Great Khali.--S_RX 16:57, 29 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anastacia Rose McPherson[edit]

Non-notable wrestling interviewer, who hasn't even been around since January. -- iMatthew _T.C. 10:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Practically no coverage of this individual outside of blogs and forums and she has done nothing to further her fields of work, so she fails WP:CREATIVE. Black-Velvet 11:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gavyn Sykes (talk) 14:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 12:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:N and WP:BLP.--S_RX 16:56, 29 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propagandaware[edit]

Contested prod. Unreferenced single-sentence of dubious credibility. No established notability through reliable third-party sources. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:OR, lacks WP:RS & WP:V. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. There is practically no mention of this term beyond a website of the same name. Black-Velvet 11:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of reliable sources and verifiability. If anything, this appears currently to be a minor protologism, although interestingly the only mention of this term that I can find in a published source is a passing mention in this article of 10 years ago, in which the author apparently invents the term in the final sentence. I've had a look but I can't find any reliable secondary sources with content that could form the basis of an encyclopedic article on this. Wiw8 (talk) 12:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At the most this would be a dictionary item, until something is said about it in a reliable source. -Northwestgnome (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:30, 27 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uni Systems LLC[edit]

Non-notable company & blatant spam. Has been deleted and re-created persistently. Nominating to delete and salt the earth, also so that it will have been consensus-deleted so that any recreation under a new name can be speedied per WP:CSD#G4. Storkk (talk) 09:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It fails WP:CORP, no coverage of any depth. I suggest covering the page in ((fact)) templates and reporting it to WP:WPSPAM. Black-Velvet 10:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No source for notability, written like an advertisement.--Boffob (talk) 14:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that the company is located in Armenia. Sites such as http://www.circus.am/ http://www.medicaltourism.am and http://www.latino.am/ include the design credit "Designed by Uni Systems, LLC" See http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=active&q=%22Uni+Systems%22+site:am for more. But I can't find any reliable sources which discuss the company. --Eastmain (talk) 00:21, 30 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, lack of independent sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final Call (album)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

It's a bootleg. Fails WP:MUSIC. Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} 09:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Bootlegs don't automatically fail WP:N via WP:MUSIC just for being bootlegs if they have received significant independent coverage in reliable sources. With the demonstration of some such sources, consensus was apparently reached regarding the notability of this album in the previous AFD; one of these sources appears now to be inaccessible, but notability is not temporary. However, the article still needs to cite its reliable sources and references. Wiw8 (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Comment: I suppose you are referring to these two: [82][83]. Well, the first one isn't verifiable, while the second one is an article written by "STEPHEN HICKS", "a student at Virginia Commonwealth University." and published by The Free Lance–Star. For reliable sources, "The word "source", as used in Wikipedia, has three related meanings: the piece of work itself, the creator of the work, and the publisher of the work. All three affect reliability", as WP:Verifiability says. First, "the piece of work itself": the article doesn't "adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, as it should. Secondly, "the creator of the work": it's a student at Virginia Commonwealth University, so I doubt he is a reliable source. Finally, "the publisher of the work" is a local, acclaimed newspaper, so it may be reliable. Overall though, I really wouldn't says this source is a reliable one.
In conclusion, none of those two sources are both reliable and verifiable, so I believe the article still fails WP:N (and therefore fails WP:MUSIC as well). Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} 21:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point was more regarding the fact that those two sources were sufficient for a "keep" consensus to be reached in the previous AFD; admittedly, the second source does look of fairly dubious reliability, so I can only assume that the first must have been quite spectacular in order for the AFD to go the way it did. The fact that that source is nolonger accessible doesn't mean that it suddenly fails WP:N - however, the fact that the article doesn't cite any sources is a problem, because the article as it stands still fails WP:V and WP:RS. I was also pointing out for the benefit of anyone choosing to take part in this AFD that being a bootleg does not necessarily mean automatic failure of WP:MUSIC. As an unreleased album which exists as a bootleg this may be more notable than your average bootleg, but yes, it needs WP:RS to prove it and to verify the facts stated. I'll have a look to see if I can find any. Wiw8 (talk) 23:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep on the grounds that this passed an AFD challenge with a keep decision only a few months ago. Artcles shouldn' tbe renominated in such a short period of time if the decision to keep is made. 23skidoo (talk) 23:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5 months ago really isn't a short period, considering Wikipedia's lifespam of 7-8 years. Nonetheless, you should know that consensus can change and your argument really isn't a valid one for keep. WP:NOTAGAIN explicitly states that your kind of argument should be avoided in a deletion discussion. Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} 23:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plus the fact that this article currently does not cite any references or sources. While the consensus of the previous AFD implies that reliable sources exist (and I agree that articles shouldn't be continually renominated for deletion on the same grounds until deletion is achieved), the article hasn't been updated to reference any reliable sources, meaning that we can't currently verify any of the information in the article which, in my opinion, is more of a problem than the fact that this is a bootleg. My search for sources has uncovered this, which discusses the (at the time) upcoming album, but unfortunately doesn't do anything in the way of verifying the information currently in the article. Wiw8 (talk) 08:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Bootleg, speculation. Are there any sources to even substantiate the name? Tenacious D Fan (talk) 13:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless the article can be updated to include reference to reliable sources that verify the facts stated. Wiw8 (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to 2014. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2014 in Ireland[edit]

Too many speculations. Not enough information for having such an article right now. Magioladitis (talk) 09:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously the article will exist in a few years time, but there is one significant prediction and one Government commitment and I don't see any speculations. Granted its only a stub so far, but a worthwhile one. Jonathan Cardy (talk) 16:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is tagged with prediction. If we remove the uncertain information they 'll nothing left. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not enough for the moment. Punkmorten (talk) 18:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article that predicts the future? No, no, no. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to 2014 - very crystal ballish, even if not nothing it has to say at this point is notable anyhow --T-rex 00:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2014. My bold prediction for 2014 in Ireland-- "March 17, 2014. Banks closed, green beer served at pubs." Mandsford (talk) 00:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CBALL. If not redirect to 2014. Artene50 (talk) 04:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Crystal Ball and unlikely to come true, if you think you'll be taking the Metro North from Stephens Green to the airport in 2014, dream on! Snappy56 (talk) 13:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2014. Buc (talk) 17:55, 28 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, defaulting to keep. Recent reference additions probably establish notability (although article is now promotional in tone). Tan ǀ 39 18:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ZipLocal[edit]

Barely-notable web company. I deleted this under A7 but was convinced to restore it. While there is some news coverage out there, the vast majority seems to be trivial or tangential or in the nature of a press release. Does not appear to meet WP:WEB, which is the criterion I would apply here. Stifle (talk) 09:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please also note the deleted article Ziplocal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), created by Zipbudz (talk · contribs), who also left a lengthy message on my talk page pleading for its creation (which I've taken no action on). --ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. --Eastmain (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. --Eastmain (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I created this article, and have added some more material about the company under its earlier name, redCity Search Company Inc. (redto.com) I think that the article now passes under WP:COMPANY and the general notability guideline, with independent coverage from a variety of sources adding up to notability. --Eastmain (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is possible that the article could be improved using some of the information in the deleted article Ziplocal, which I did not have access to when I was creating this article. --Eastmain (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have examined the deleted contents of all three incarnations of the previous article and the main differences in the content are G11 to the point of uselessness. The actual useful content of the article is not appreciably different from the article as it stands today. Eastmain, if you would create a sandbox and give me the link to it, I would transfer the contents of the previous article into it so you could examine them. Trusilver 21:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Three time deleted article under G11 criteria. While the tone has been fixed, the fact that there really just isn't enough to make this company pass WP:CORP does not. I would be open to changing my position if more verifiable content is submitted. Trusilver 21:41, 3 August 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. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Thompson Band[edit]

Non-notable band. Can't find evidence that any of the twelve criteria in WP:MUSIC are met. nancy ^talk 08:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Had a good dig around, but found little, and a claim that the singer's previous band once supported Foreigner doesn't cut it either. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 10:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:31, 27 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rudrabbumi[edit]

Hoax. No reliable sources. Redtigerxyz (talk) 08:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Redtigerxyz (talk) 08:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- While I am not convinced it is a hoax (there is a place called Rudrabumi which might be what's meant) but the article does not establish notability, and I can't find any decent sources to justify keeping this thing. Reyk _YO! 09:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In a way it is a hoax because its strong POV cannot be supported by evidence (one of the holiest places...). Despite that it still doesn't have any reliable sources to show it notability. Gizza^Discuss ^© 23:56, 29 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Verve's Urban Hymns B-sides[edit]

Non-notable B-sides. All information is forked from respective singles. Fancruft. Please see the AfDs for Garbage B-sides and List of Coldplay's b-sides. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 17:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 20:16, 22 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,Synergy 08:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as forked fancruft. — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because this can all be covered in articles on the singles or the album. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge and redirect to The Verve discography - b sides are inherently not notable --T-rex 00:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Always Holding II Berettas[edit]

Non-notable "future debut album" purportedly due to be released next year. The artist himself is non-notable and has yet to have anything in release. Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL all around. Ravenswing 08:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums & WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 09:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Punkmorten (talk) 09:58, 2 August 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 - Bio that fails to show importance/significance of subject) by DGG. Nonadmin close. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

R.W.Wilson[edit]

Fails notability guidelines for authors, as the article itself states: "Although essentially unpublished"... "has only two collections of work available to the public, both of which exist only in a digital version available through Amazon.com's Kindle Store", the author isn't notable enough. Brought here for further discussion. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 07:58, 27 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Visa Requirements for Indians travelling to other countries[edit]

Article appears to be un-encyclopedic. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 07:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Wikipedia is not a guide. Reyk _YO! 09:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should be an external link on a related page - at best. --Carbon Rodney (Talk but be nice) 09:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and Delete this belongs on wikitravel, not here --UltraMagnus (talk) 09:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 09:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTGUIDE. Appears to be a possible copyvio, as well. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 15:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a guide, per all the above. JIP | Talk 17:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per all the above. Lehoiberri (talk) 02:13, 31 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phil's bbq[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Phil's bbq

I'm not sure whether this is notable or not... Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 07:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- No. No it isn't. Makes no assertion of notability; it's not enough that something merely exists. Reyk _YO! 09:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dellete probably a great place to eat, I'd love to try it. Do they deliver? Not notable. DANG!--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no claim to be notable --T-rex 00:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I like that it does have authentic style barbecue and an all-around jovial atmosphere. If even one cusomer visits there this week as a result of this article, author will have accomplished the purpose of using Wikipedia for free advertising. But what will you do next week? Mandsford (talk) 00:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is lacking, as per previous observations -- however, I would gladly consider changing my vote if Phil sends over a pulled pork sandwich and some onion rings! :) Ecoleetage (talk) 04:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and suggest you all take this into account. this shows that they've won a notable award (and apparently 3 times in a row according to the resteraunts website, although that should be taken with a pinch of salt). Surely that's grounds for inclusion. Ironho lds 15:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment, I'm not too sure how notable this award makes the restaurant as it is a local acknowledgment of restaurants in San Diego only. Additionally, I mean come on they rated PF Chang's the top Asian restaurant? Many of these "restaurant association" ratings are voted on by members or board members of the organization and they have a particular bias which makes the award somewhat dubious at times. I'm sure it is a great restaurant but greater notability is needed.--Chef Tanner (talk) 17:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my comment above.--Chef Tanner (talk) 17:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malwa College of Nursing[edit]

Organisation whose article does not assert notability. Might be speedied under A7, but I'm bringing it here as possibly contentious. Contested PROD. Sandstein 06:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in its current state. I cannot find any useful sources in a quick search but directory listings confirm it is a state recognised, degree issuing college. If sources can be found (or if someone can establish that educational organisations at this level are inherently notable) I'll change my mind. Nuttah (talk) 07:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Degree granting higher educational institutions are all considered notable. This is one of the few accepted practices about the notability of educational institutions, but they have so far always been kept at AfD if the information can be verified even from their web site and they have a real physical presence--and they appear on some standard list to show they do actual exist--which conditions are met for this one. Among the reasons for this is the difficulty of finding good accessible sources for ones like this, in some countries ;like this, and the consequent cultural bias.DGG (talk) 11:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Recognized colleges and universities are inherently notable. Nsk92 (talk) 14:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On account of what policy or guideline, if they have no substantial coverage in reliable sources? Sandstein 15:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I admit that there is no explicit policy or guideline specifying this but I believe that it is a part of long-standing consensus, also reflecting my personal opinion. Certain things, like settlements (even tiny villages), are inherently notable regardless of their size or of how much coverage by third-party sources they have, provided basic WP:V requirements are satisfied. I would place accredited institutions of higher education in the same category. Thus a proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (schools) says that "In general, tertiary degree-awarding institutions and senior secondary schools are considered notable". This includes high schools, for example, and certainly includes degree-granting institutions of higher education. While this is only a proposed guideline, I believe that it has reasonably wide consensus. I have seen lots of WP articles about high schools and I don't think they are ever deleted. Nsk92 (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If this is kept, someone really needs to keep the article on a leash to keep it from becoming an advertisement. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I offer to undertake that. I have quite a number of such articles watchlisted for just this reason DGG (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keepper DGG and Nsk92 Hobit (talk) 23:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - tertiary, degree awarding institutions are notable. TerriersFan (talk) 18:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Degree-giving institution, ergo notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:15, 28 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newport Mooring Association[edit]

Contested speedy. A local organisation article, with a suspected COI. That's not the reason for deletion though, it's because despite numerous references being supplied and a further search there is nothing hat establishes notability. Nuttah (talk) 06:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The editor declines to observe Wikipedia policy which suggests tagging the article with ((notability)) (see Talk:Newport Mooring Association). This is a relatively new article as well.

Regarding notability, the organization is notable, not as the late city resident John Wayne is notable, but rather with reference to its field. True, references could stand paring down; in some cases one illustrates a point as well as another. Note that the majority of references point not to the org. web site, but to County, City, or Grand Jury documents in PD which refer to the organization. Organization is notable not just to tidelands permit holders, but also to general boating pubic which chooses to visit the harbor, since the org. web site provides local knowledge and promotes understanding of local ordinances of which visitors may be unaware...especially regarding sea lion deterrence. Newportm (talk) 20:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no evidence that the organisation is notable per WP:NOTABILITY. Despite the many references you have added, none can be considered anything more than trivial and nothing that could be called independent. [84] is a prime example. The article is a month old, my searches fail to find any notable coverage. Nuttah (talk) 21:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Explained in the article footnote its significance. The Sheriff-Coroner's reply (Carona, Michael S. Response to the Grand Jury) notes Newport Mooring Association's collaboration on rewriting City mooring administration policy. Many news agencies followed this investigation but I have not had time yet to document them. Other news articles are cited, as are links to the organization from the city Chamber of Commerce site and the City Harbor Resources Dept. site. I'll try to make other citations more self-evident as to their significance, so the reader does not have to do so much puzzle-buidling. Newportm (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Comment Please read WP:NOTABILITY and WP:ORG, they will help you establish notability, if it exists, and save you wasted time and effort. The reference you provide here, [Response to the Grand Jury] is a classic example of a trivial mention. What you need to be providing are independent, reliable sources that discuss the association (at least one newspaper article, preferably more, about the association). Nuttah (talk) 17:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here's one I've included [85] which ties NMA into the mooring administration rewrite process; mooring administration had been the subject of the County Grand Jury investigation. The rewrite process was commenced to address these issues actually prior to the Grand Jury's investigation which formally suggested it needed doing; it was (and is) ongoing. Newportm (talk) 18:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yet again its trivial. I reiterate the relevant notability guidelines. 'A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources.' None of the numerous references you are adding are ABOUT the association, and that is what you need to add. Nuttah (talk) 18:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All I have is secondary sources that directly treat projects the association has been involved with, as opposed to secondary sources that treat the association itself directly, as you note. C'est la vie. Newportm (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No valid hits found when using google news or google scholar and little to nothing on regular google. Plus its a pretty strong COI. Themfromspace (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - despite the huge list of references, none establish the notability of the organisation. All that has been established is that they exist. -- Whpq (talk) 14:32, 30 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Tilley[edit]

Non-notable font designer, no mentions found in independent, reliable sources (only websites selling his fonts), contested prod (by user with likely COI) Somno (talk) 06:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While there may be notable font designers, it doesn't appear that the subject is one of them. Movingboxes (talk) 07:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability unestablished. RayAYang (talk) 08:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- notability not established, borderline advertisement, huge conflict of interest issues (author's username is Thejessemancan) Reyk _YO! 09:02, 27 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Hetherington[edit]

Non-notable under-18 actor. All appearances have been guest-starring or other minor roles. Only sources are IMDB (reliability issues) and his acting teacher/casting director's webpage. Finally, the main editor is User:Gavinh2008, which suggests there may be a conflict of interest issue also. —C.Fred (talk) 05:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only bit parts (and all but one unsourced). Doesn't even come close to satisfying notability guidelines for entertainers. Evident autobiography. Hqb (talk) 05:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm surprised this didn't get speedied as an A7. RayAYang (talk) 08:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Pure nn-autobio. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 14:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only a couple of minor roles, no substantial coverage by reliable sources. May or may not be notable in the future but definitely does not pass WP:CREATIVE for now. Nsk92 (talk) 23:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability. List of credits as an actor doesn't provide any indication that there is notability to be found at this stage of his career. -- Whpq (talk) 14:34, 30 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. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 23:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dolphin Music[edit]

WP:CORP. Lacks significant coverage in secondary sources. Second source appears to be a press relese, leaving one short article. Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Contested prod. Reason was "Clearly notable." Duffbeerforme (talk) 08:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dolton Records - current article is lacking in coverage in independent, reliable sources, indicating the notability of the UK label. Dolphin Records was the original name of the US label Dolton Records, most noted for being the label of The Ventures and The Fleetwoods. "Dolphin Music" is a common mistake in referring to Dolphin Records. B.Wind (talk) 05:57, 11 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, JForget 22:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:46, 21 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, Whispe ring 04:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dolton Records per B.Wind. Current article lacks a convincing assertion of notability, and a redirect would be useful. Reyk _YO! 08:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 37th fastest-growing company in the UK, plus multimillion pound turnover suggest sufficient notability. WWGB (talk) 12:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What's the policy on how many times an article gets relisted "to generate a more thorough discussion"? IMO, this should have been closed as no-consensus (defaulting to keep) after the 2nd relisting failed to expand the discussion. Lugnuts (talk) 15:56, 27 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 --Step hen 05:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Musician artist agency[edit]

Non-notable musical agency, fails WP:CORP, WP:MUSIC. Created by User talk:Daisy404, who has created a flurry of walled garden articles around the Hodge family, all of which have either been speedied or are up at AfD, and a couple of which have been recreated after speedying. In this particular case (the soi-disant Mr. Hodge is on the masthead as "co-CEO"), despite the article's assertion that this is a giant firm with over 350 agents, 1300 employees and six offices nationwide, and the firm's own website claims a long laundry list of musical talent, few people ever seem to have heard of it: only 31 Google hits, all of them this article, various Wiki mirrors, the firm's website and Myspace page, and a few other self-publishing sites. I have the strong suspicion that the likes of Mariah Carey, Montel Williams, Mary Chapin Carpenter (whose name the firm's site actually misspells), Tom Brokaw, Jane Pauley, Beyonce, Lawrence Fishburn, Kanye West and many, many other such names and groups would be quite surprised to find out that they've "worked" with this agency, as the site claims. RGTraynor 04:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this page should not be deleted, the agency is a notable musical agency, --Daisy404 (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)dasiy404--Daisy404 (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible delete. The claims to notability are stretching my credulity to the limit. A huge national agency that no-one has ever heard of and which can't even afford their own URL for their website??? Walter Mitty rides again. nancy ^talk 17:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt The amount of editor time wasted by this article creator and User:Sunpop over the last few days is ridiculous. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 23:24, 27 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 as G1. Soxπed93^(blag) 14:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apastadeiceuh[edit]

Both Google and Yahoo are coming zero. I suspect this is a hoax. Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia not for things made up at school, lacks notability. Nuttah (talk) 06:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's nonsense. --Carbon Rodney (Talk but be nice) 09:12, 27 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 all--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Silence[edit]

Non-notable Dixie Chicks song, not a single so it fails WP:MUSIC. I'm also nominating these songs below for the same reason. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 04:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 04:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect all to the albums. No need for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 04:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect. I agree. These articles should not be kept separate for the reasons stated by the nom. However, there's no reason not to just do a redirect.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 this is not a valid list per WP:NOT#GUIDE. Davewild (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Leaders in Panzer General II[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Essentially a list of units and the upgrades they get (from the article lead: "Leaders are special abilities granted to experienced units."). As such, this article isn't an appropriate video game article. Nifboy (talk) 04:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Nifboy (talk) 04:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#GUIDE - Wikipedia is not the game's manual or gamefaqs.com and this is clearly unencyclopedic. Nick Dowling (talk) 04:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Transwiki'd to StrategyWiki:Panzer General II/Leaders. -- Prod (Talk) 06:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia isn't a game guide. RobJ1981 (talk) 07:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Complete game guide, something which doesnt belong on an encyclopedia. Salavat (talk) 07:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not enough information for playing the game, so not a game guide. acceptable spinoff article for notable game. DGG (talk) 11:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying that without this information, players wouldn't know how to play this game? MuZemike (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

not at all. I am saying that even with this information, players still wouldnt know enough to play the game. More is required than a list of pieces and the strengths. DGG (talk) 08:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it contributes to knowing how to play the game, and is practically unintelligible to non-players. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#GUIDE; as I said, "Anti-Tank is Yes to Bridging? What the hell does that mean?" Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 13:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a gameguide, and no matter how well laid-out this article is it contains data that belongs in a FAQ. Someone another 15:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a game guide. JIP | Talk 17:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — This article is not encyclopedic in the slightest. It fails WP:NOTHOWTO. The policy clearly states that Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook or textbook. MuZemike (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:GAMEGUIDE information. Even without "how to", explains an excessive amount of the game's strategy beyond what is needed to understand the work. Arguably a violation of WP:NOT#PLOT by the same rationale: excessive in-universe information. Also fails to meet the WP:GNG because there is no substantial coverage in reliable third-party sources that can prove this topic is notable. As of now, the only reliable source is gamespot, and the coverage there is a trivial one-sentence remark about leaders in the game. Randomran (talk) 16:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everyone. This information is essentially useless to people who are not playing the game. Addionne (talk) 12:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete All, consensus is that the articles fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 17:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 10th Day[edit]

Delete. Unreferenced, non-notable band, no record of any such performance at 2007 Grammys WWGB (talk) 02:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it's non-notable material by the non-notable band:

Delete While I don't want to bite a new article, its not that notable and unsourced. Artene50 (talk) 02:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 09:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - per nom --T-rex 00:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. No indication of notability via significant coverage in reliable sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:34, 1 August 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 Cenarium ^Talk 10:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Master in Manufacturing Management[edit]

Non-notable degree program, fails WP:NOTADVERTISING at a minimum. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:38, 21 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, Soxπed93^(blag) 01:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Borderline WP:ADVERT. Fails notability- just because something can be shown to exist does not mean it is suitable to include in an encyclopedia. And this isn't. Reyk _YO! 02:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is very rare for a particular degree program, even at a major university, to be notable and there is no evidence that this particular one is either. No substantive coverage by third-party reliable sources mentioned in the article and very little to be found on the web. Does not pass WP:N and does not pass WP:ORG either. Nsk92 (talk) 02:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Little in the realms of reliable sources on Google and nothing on Google news. I would say that this fails company notability guidelines. —Atyndall ^{[citation needed]} 03:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn, and essentially an advert. Possibly redirect to a master's degree article. JJL (talk) 03:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable topic. RayAYang (talk) 03:54, 27 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 --Step hen 05:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Ross Singers[edit]

Non-notable singing group, fails WP:BAND, WP:V. The articles claims that this group appeared on many albums, but a G-search turns up only 20 hits [86], all of them from this article, various Wiki mirrors, and various self-published sites. The creator, Special:Contributions/Daisy404, is a new editor busy in creating a walled garden for this group and its members, all of whom have either been speedied or AfDed; a couple articles have been recreated after deletion. RGTraynor 01:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ross Singers]]))&action=delete)) delete] I have to agree with you here but mainly on account of this articles awful formatting and grammar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahern94 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Formatting and grammar are reasons for cleanup, not deletion. Deletion is for articles that, in the best possible light, would never belong in Wikipedia. Jclemens (talk) 02:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agreed; a poorly-written article about an otherwise notable subject is one I could - and should - clean up myself instead of seeking deletion. RGTraynor 16:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nominator is correct. The subject isn't notable at present with no reliable independent third party sources. Maybe in the future but not now. Note: This is not a question of formatting or grammar; its one of notability and there isn't enough to justify a Wikipedia article for the subject. Artene50 (talk) 02:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing even attempting to assert notability here. - Vianello (talk) 03:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No good results on google or google news, nothing to show any notability. Fails band notability guidelines. —Atyndall ^{[citation needed]} 03:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 09:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "they had no chart success" - says it all really. Fails WP:MUSIC nancy ^talk 17:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC) And Betty Jean Hodge too. nancy ^talk 17:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A bit off-key in regard to WP:MUSIC Ecoleetage (talk) 23:12, 27 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 as G10 by Versageek. Synergy 08:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Newton[edit]

The article is an orphan, and writing unknown movie scripts an "imdb trolling" is not notable. NauticaShad es 01:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- article basically asserts non-notability. Fails WP:BIO by several lightyears. Reyk _YO! 01:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Umm, yeah. Somehow, I don't think I've seen a single RS'ed claim to fame from an Internet Troll. Jclemens (talk) 02:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Either this is a biography of a person which does not assert a claim to notability, or an attack page against the subject, or both. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nuke Fails utterly at Life, The Universe, and Everything. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 03:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google and google news turn up no results relevant to him. The page really doesn't suggest why he is notable. I think the page fails human notability criteria. —Atyndall ^{[citation needed]} 04:10, 27 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 Cenarium ^Talk 21:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1/72 Scale Plastic Napoleonic Figures[edit]

A long list that slavishly documents every example of a small subset of Toy soldiers. Few of the companies that produce or produced these things would be notable, and none of the various types of soldier are. The entire list is hopelessly indiscriminate. Reyk _YO! 01:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The creator is a new editor but the article has lots of subjective POV and WP:OR. Someone else may have a different list. Artene50 (talk) 02:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a catalog --neon white talk 03:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This list seems to be full of original research and does not suggest why such 1:72 scale plastic toys are notable. Google turns up some results but none are reliable and google news turns up nothing. I think that this article fails general notability criteria. —Atyndall ^{[citation needed]} 04:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm pretty sure magazines etc. on wargaming (there are even ones specializing in Napoleonic era) would establish notability for the models. The problem with this article is not notability but rather that it is becoming a POV essay rather than a list or a properly sourced article. Something like this would need VERY strong sourcing indeed to be kept, I feel. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is sourced, if weakly, and is a discriminate list. No signs of original research, either. Edward321 (talk) 00:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because Wikipedia is not a catalog, the article has original research, and are these things even notable? Tavix (talk) 15:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the title of Napoleonic figurines might be useful, cataloging to this degree is unnecessary and irrelevant. If someone cares this much about it, they could write it in its own wiki.Brinlong (talk) 20:18, 1 August 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 the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Farris[edit]

Delete - Lacks notability. Unknown athlete (if he even exists - possibly a hoax). Google search of IAAF.org and USATF.org return no results for Josh Farris. Wikipedia criteria for notability of athletes are quite strict. Refer WP:ATHLETE. Runners meeting those criteria, will be known to the IAAF and have a profile on the IAAF site. If a US runner, will also be known to the USATF and be searchable on USATF.org site. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 01:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:V at present. Artene50 (talk) 01:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity page. JJL (talk) 03:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing on google or google news. The nominator said it all. He fails the athelete notability criteria. —Atyndall ^{[citation needed]} 04:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he is a high school athlete without any reliable sources to indicate notability. Here is the information for him from the Georgia schools cross-country site. -- Whpq (talk) 14:45, 30 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 the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 16:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzzlewump[edit]

No establishment of notability in any vein, aside from two people on the talk page who say they know of it (one because they knew the person who came up with it in school one day). Vianello (talk) 01:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OK, so it might exist. Still fails WP:N and WP:FICT. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 01:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:COI and WP:N This search shows no references from reliable sites. Artene50 (talk) 01:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the arguments above. There's also a page entitled It's A Fuzzlewump Life about the comic book that I made into a redirect to Fuzzlewump. When this article is deleted, the closing admin should delete the redirect as well. Reyk _YO! 01:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I deleted the circular redirects within the article. Jclemens (talk) 02:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourced. Has anyone ever seen this comic series? I find no ghits for it. Jclemens (talk) 02:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Jclemens, did you see the circulation figure - self-admission of non-notability. Sgroupace (talk) 03:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh, I'd missed that. Surprising that it sells that many issues and doesn't even have a Geocities (or equivalent) web page... I remain unconvinced that it really exists. Jclemens (talk) 04:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability requirements by a long way. Nuttah (talk) 06:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR Merge (note: I am the editor that did the last CSD). There are a few issues:

the original editor who created the article has the username "Fuzzlewump" (arv submitted)
40-50 copies of a publication is very low notability.
The "product" almost appears to be more of a viral marketing concept, rather than a "real" product.
There are no verifiable external references.

By itself, this article shows no true notability. Perhaps if combined with the Fuzzlewump life's entry, this article could be of sufficient length, clarity, with appropriate references (which could be the challenge) to remain. I'm not convinced of its encylopedic nature, but if done right pehaps it has a right. If not ... um, bye bye! BMW(drive) 12:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question. I feel sorta dumb asking this, but, what Fuzzlewump Life entry? - Vianello (talk) 19:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response- there was another article, a sub-stub entitled It's A Fuzzlewump Life about the comic book. Reyk _YO! 20:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 40-50 issues a month? You gotta be kidding me ... Daniel Case (talk) 14:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I went through the usual databases and couldn't find a thing (other than references to Fuzzlewump as a username in Google). Then, just to be sure, I ran it through the slightly less usual databases, and nothing turned up there, ether. So I ran it through Ebesco, and that too turned up naught. At this stage I'd be really surprised if a reference turned up that could be used. Disappointing, as I rather like the idea of a Fuzzlewump, but so be it. :) - Bilby (talk) 00:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 01:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obviously non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:39, 30 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. Has been redirected per Khoi, so deletion is moot, and anyway towns are generally considered inherently notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somlyógyőrtelek[edit]

Move to dictionary DimaG (talk) 00:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Giurtelecu Şimleului (same place, different language). Khoi khoi 02:31, 27 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 the article has been speedily deleted. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baljit Mahngar[edit]

Vanity DimaG (talk) 00:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article was created by the subject himself. Could find no reliable sources on his 'multi-million dollar business.' Perhaps he will be notable 2 or 3 years in the future--just not in July 2008. Artene50 (talk) 01:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Wikipedia:CSD#A7. So tagged. Reyk _YO! 01:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- created by user User:Baljitmahngar and speedied once before. Reyk _YO! 01:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, probably qualifies for speedy A7. No references anywhere. The claim that "In April 2008, Baljit launched his Multi-Million Dollars business with the largest telecommunications company in the world" is not credible on its face. Nsk92 (talk) 02:15, 27 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, due to concerns over notability and being a game guide. Davewild (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Embrace (World of Darkness)[edit]

There are no independent references to demonstrate notability of this role-playing game terminology. The article consists solely of in-universe plot summary with nothing to support notability. --Craw-daddy | T | 00:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 00:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Purely in-game terminology with no out-of-game usage or relevance. Wikipedia is not a howto guide for roleplaying games. RayAYang (talk) 03:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 05:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A non notable section of game guide. Nuttah (talk) 06:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a game guide. JIP | Talk 17:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 19:29, 29 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 as disruptive pointy nomination. Users first contribution to boot. Synergy 08:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis B. Schwellenbach[edit]

Unnotable figure from Wisconsin. Fails WP: Notability guidelines 1972hero (talk) 05:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep How is a US senator and Secretary of Labor unnotable? Clearly satisfies notability guidelines for politicians. The fact that he has an official portrait hanging in the Department of Labor should also be a clue. Hqb (talk) 06:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep US senator, cabinet member, has been on the cover of TIME MAGAZINE (October 15, 1945 -- A likeness of Schwellenbach was on the cover.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riffic (talk • contribs) 06:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. This nomination appears to be an act of vandalism. The nominator has no contributions other than those related to this AfD. --Eastmain (talk) 06:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Nominator appears not to have read article. RayAYang (talk) 08:14, 27 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.