The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Concerns over reliable sources, verifiability and WP:BIO. The neutrals notwithstanding, there is no evidence that this person meets the inclusion criteria, as indicated by the lack of sources provided. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Cautionary note: I moved Sarah Johns (singer) to Sarah Johns since the qualifier was no longer needed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Johns[edit]

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

While the singer of the same name is no doubt notable, I see nothing that makes this voice actress with a permastub page notable. When searching for her name and various keywords I'm finding nothing of relevance. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 22:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note If this page is deleted, I will be moving Sarah Johns (singer) to this title, as the qualifier will no longer be needed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 22:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable voice actress and reliable sources are found about her on a search (e.g. sara johns voice actress). If it is kept, I would suggest moving this page to "Sarah Johns (voice actress)" and making the "Sarah Johns" page a disambiguation Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} 22:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If you've found a source, then add it to the article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 23:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1518579/ IMDb.com says she did voice work for more than 40 episodes of Gundam Seed aka Mobile Suit Gundam Seed. --Eastmain (talk) 01:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• IMDb is not a reliable source. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:15, 4 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, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm having trouble finding any WP:RS and WP:V sourcing for the voice actress, and I don't see any cited in the article or in this discussion. Unless that changes, delete and relocate the notable country singer to this title.   user:j    (aka justen)   23:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral, I guess. I wish I knew if this was a hoax or just inaccessible information. --Eastmain (talk) 23:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. Even though I created the page a long time ago, I don't really have an opinion on whether it should be deleted or not. The original sources I got some of the information on aren't really citable, I suppose because they were credits from television (Class of the Titans) or from DVDs (Gundam Seed). EikaKou (talk) 03:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete I see no evidence of significant roles, cult following, significant contributions." I got Google news hits for a singer of the same name, but not for the actress. The external links provided do not help the cause. Dlohcierekim's sock (talk) 03:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Even supposing it is not a hoax, I don't think it's notable. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 03:36, 5 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, the arguments of IPs on the keep aren't particularly convincing as opposed to those of the delete voters. --JForget 23:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge University Students’ Union Lesbian, Bisexual, Gay and Transgender Campaign[edit]

Cambridge University Students’ Union Lesbian, Bisexual, Gay and Transgender Campaign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A student society/grouping at an individual university is far from unique or individually notable. The article is entirely an internal description of what the group provides. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Non-notable club or group. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 23:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 4 Google hits. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 00:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable student organisation without any independent sourcing Ohconfucius (talk) 10:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. See my long note on the talk page of the article. The article is purely a description of the activities of the organisation. It has no evidence to show that it has wider social, cultural, or historical importance, nor that it has enjoyed any significance outside the world of the university.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 10:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable and non-verifiable Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikipedia can be a NPOV, the page needs work and facts, not deletion. 193.171.84.30 (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Once the very existence of such a society would have been noteworthy. Fortunately the UK has become more tolerant. --Simon Speed (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but get rid of if the page doesn't improve, I can totally see why people wanna get rid of it. 193.170.20.110 (talk) 16:11, 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 Keep --JForget 23:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Rockwell Mackie[edit]

Thomas Rockwell Mackie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No real claims of notability, no sources, has been sitting with a request for cleanup for over a year. Corvus cornix_talk 21:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. From the article: "He is a primary inventor and algorithm designer of the helical tomotherapy concept. He has over 150 peer-reviewed publications, over 15 patents, and has been the supervisor for dozens of Ph.D. students." I added several references. I think the article now demonstrates notability. --Eastmain (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Having not been improved is not a reason to nominate for deletion, nor is unsourced a reason for deletion at all when sources can be found. DGG (talk) 00:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you read my deletion nomination at all? It's the lack of claims of notability that caused me to nominate it. Corvus cornix_talk 01:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that the points from the article that I quoted above are in fact claims of notability. --Eastmain (talk) 03:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Searching the Web of Science database on "mackie tr" shows 113 refereed journal articles (148 total hits, including meeting abstracts, etc.) on the subjects of radiology, nuclear medicine, biomedical engineering, etc. Though I did not check each individual entry, most all are traced to UW (where Mackie is on staff), which means these all likely are attributable to him (rather than someone else with a similar name). This person seems to be a well-established and notable leader in their field.Agricola44 (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DGG and Agricola44. --Crusio (talk) 17:50, 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 --JForget 23:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Search engines Query Refinements[edit]

Search engines Query Refinements (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. WP:NOTHOWTO CultureDrone (talk) 21:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No references, how-to guide, inappropriate tone. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 21:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete How-to essay. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 21:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not encyclopaedic. --Porqin (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unencyclopedic topic, article is of such low quality that even if an acceptable article were to be written on a related topic, none of this material would be of use. Skomorokh 13:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:45, 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 deleted as not asserting notability. Dlohcierekim 22:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bandulu Dub[edit]

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

non-notable band/artist (can't tell) whose only sources come from MySpace. Seems to be an advertisement. Tavix (talk) 20:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, article reads like an advertisement for a non-notable band. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 21:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. The stated label doesn't seem to exist outside of myspace. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• A7 Doesn't even assert notability. (I've never seen the "born" field used in an infobox for a band before.) So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 22:15, 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 delete (G7) by J.delanoy. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler McQuade[edit]

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

This unreferenced article doesn't show any notability for this boxer - only 12 amateur fights. Incidentally, Google searches for "Tyler McQuade"+"boxer", or "Tyler McQuade"+"Golden Gloves" return no relevant results apart from this article, Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - there is no coverage of a Tyler McQuade. So fundamentally, the article fails WP:V. Note also that the creator of the article vandalized National Golden Gloves Lightweight Champions, placing Tyler McQuade as the 2000 winner which is wrong as shown by the list from the Golden Gloves site. -- Whpq (talk) 12:49, 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. lifebaka++ 13:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Logos and uniforms of the New England Patriots[edit]

Logos and uniforms of the New England Patriots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I came across the article while browsing some NFL topics. This article should be deleted for the following reasons:

• The subject of the article is not notable in and of itself. The New England Patriots are notable, but their uniforms and logos by themselves lack the notability separate from the team itself to be included as its own article.
• The lack of notability is shown by the lack of sourced critical commentary on Logos and uniforms of the New England Patriots.
• This article is, at its core, a non-free content gallery, housing 16 fair-use images. This goes against the principle of a free encyclopedia.
• Overall, this is an unnecessary fork of New England Patriots. The main article covers the subject enough, and at the very least a separate section can be written in the main article to cover this very narrow topic (see Green Bay Packers for an example of this). Mainly, there just has not been any third-party reliable sources that focus on just the logos and uniforms. The sources in the article are not third party, nor do they just discuss the topic of the article. They discuss the Patriots as an organization and make passing comments about the changes in uniforms and logos. Thus this article should be deleted. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 20:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note:WikiProject NFL and WikiProject New England Patriots have been notified of this discussion. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 20:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Useless gallery, any useful information could be incorporated into the New England Patriots article. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 20:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable gallery. Tavix (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all images could be used on the Pats main article, history article, or season articles; no need to repeat them again. Blackngold29 21:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Masonpatriot (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - Masonpatriot (talk) 22:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but incorporate into main article as it needs expansion anyway. Neonblak (talk) 02:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to New England Patriots although most of the information may already be there. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as above South-East7™^Talk/_Contribs 13:36, 6 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. --PeaceNT (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

News blog[edit]

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

Contested prod. Article is unsourced and appears to be a pure dictionary definition. TN‑X-Man 20:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unsourced dic-def. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Lacks reliable sources. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 21:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. There is already an article on blogs Artene50 (talk) 06:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:46, 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. Wikipedia is not an indisciminate collection of information. The keep arguments presented below are spectacularly unpersuasive. Nandesuka (talk) 19:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cogs[edit]

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

non-notable list of WP:FANCRUFT Tavix (talk) 19:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unsourced trivia. How many of these have even made more than one appearance anyway? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 19:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Anything important is already in the main article. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Disney's Toontown Online. MuZemike (talk) 20:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It really doesn't need a redirect. How many people would type in "list of Cogs" anyway? Tavix (talk) 21:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to preserve the history, even though the term is unlikely as a reference. DGG (talk) 02:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No reliable third-party sources exist that substantially cover "Cogs", so cannot meet the General Notability Guideline. Randomran (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:JNN, WP:ITSCRUFT, and WP:PERNOM all being insufficient reasons for deletion. Plus, it is a legitimate search term per these readers and these editors. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• comment Have you noticed that 95% of those editors are IPs or bots? This article was created by and maintained by people who don't know the Wikipeida policies. Its not a reason to keep something just because some IPs are happy editing the article. Tavix (talk) 04:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That still leaves a percentage of editors who do know the Wikipedia policies and believe it meets them enough to edit the article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In addition, transwiki all information to either Wikia, StrategyWiki, etc. While information may not be useful to most users here, it may be in more specialized wikis. MuZemike (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

since when is the rule for notability being "useful to most users here" ? Very few articles will be read by "most users"-- almost everyone coms to read a specific article, and expects to find it. sure, some browse, but they too only look at some of the articles. To whom are the wrestling articles useful except wrestling fans? To whom the articles about classical music? About Japanese history? about any topic at all--pick one that "most" of our users will have have actually read. Anything with enough people to write the articles has enough users. If we decline to include something, we need another reason, like--in this case--possibly inappropriate detail. DGG (talk) 03:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Transwiki'd to StrategyWiki:Disney's Toontown Online/Cogs. -- Prod (Talk) 05:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If transwikied, then we should at least soft redirect to that location. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I agree. MuZemike (talk) 16:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added a an external link to the main Disney's Toontown Online page. The cogs term is far too generic for a redirect to be useful. -- Prod (Talk) 18:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia shouldn't redirect to external sites. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 July 11#Akimichi clan. --Phirazo 16:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, a list of generic enemies lacks context of any sort. A textbook case of failing to meet WP:VGSCOPE. Nifboy (talk) 14:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It passes Wikipedia:Lists by being discriminate, encyclopedic, maintainable, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Sorry, but it isn't notable, discriminate, or encyclopedic for that matter. Please show me how this "list" is any of those and then we'll talk. Tavix (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Appropriate topics for lists: Even if we can, that does not mean we should. Nifboy (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect to Toontown Online - no notability. no notability claimed. no out of universe understandability. only use violates WP:GAMEGUIDE. counter to WP:VGSCOPE. zero sources. --T-rex 18:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no assertion of notability. Violates WP:GAMEGUIDE, WP:VGSCOPE. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It passes What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which doesn't matter in the slightest. A bunch of random essays don't trump guidelines and policy. So long as you continue to treat them like the holy grail, no one is going to take any of your arguments seriously. That and several of them aren't even related to the deletion of articles, which further convinces everyone that you have little to no clue of what you're trying to push through. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 20:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article meets Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world), which is why your argument doesn't seem serious. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Citing the most vague and broad presentation of our guidelines and policies does not make your argument serious in any fashion. Seriously, don't bother replying in the future unless your response is "here are the sources". You're never going to convince anyone with WP:5P or your collection of essay dribble. Presenting the same arguments over and over again to someone who has heard them dozens of times and is simply tired of the sheer absurdity and nonsense that you are espousing doesn't work. You're never going to convince me going down this route, and the only thing you are doing is wasting my time and lowering my respect for you down to basically nothing. At this stage, it's simply trolling. Don't bother in the future. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Being incivil and making personal attacks is not how you are going to earn fellow editors' respect or convince anyone that there is a dire need to delete the article in question, nor is making the same inaccurate "arguments" over and over. I am not going to be baited by such unconstructive and misleading, possibly not even serious comment as the above. Thus, I urge you to work to help us improve these articles rather than attack other editors in the discussions and be open-minded to acknowledging when sources are presented in future AfDs. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've improved a crapload more articles than you have, and enjoy doing so. Trying to accuse me of not doing so is almost insulting. In any case, I've heard your arguments countless times. I don't consider them convincing or even relevant to the topic most of the time. I simply want you to stop replying to my !votes with the same collection of essays, links, and whatnot. I never reply to your !votes, and it's trolling on your part because you know perfectly well that I don't consider the arguments convincing and yet you do so anyway. Again, don't bother replying to my !votes in the future unless it's "here are the sources" when it is a question of notability. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • But it's okay for you to insult or make laughable accusations at me? I don't consider your arguments convincing or relevant and in a discussion, we discuss, i.e. we hold each other's arguments to task and we try to work through them. We don't delete articles unless there is absolutely no realistic way the article can ever be improved, as there is almost always at least a redirect location in the worst case scenario and we do need to be courteous to those members of our community working to improve these articles. Wikipedia is a work in progress without a deadline. I see no pressing need to delete this article right here and now, i.e. to stop all work on it. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • ...I don't interact with you at all on AfDs until you post a reply to one of my !votes. I never reply to your !vote (so long as it is the same boilerplate as usual) because I am perfectly aware that the discussion will not go anywhere. Posting a reply to one of my !votes with the same arguments that you've posted to my !votes in the past doesn't work. Discussion doesn't head anywhere because I don't consider any of the arguments you are using to be convincing. It's trolling because you know that the discussion won't head anywhere, that I don't consider your arguments convincing, and that it's pointless, yet you do so anyways. My only request is that you stop commenting to my !votes with SOFIXIT, "What Wikipedia is", 5P, or anything that you usually bring up because it's pointless and it wastes my time. If notability is in question, then feel free to comment with "here are the sources" (with direct links to the sources), which addresses my comment and thus is constructive discussion. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 23:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I can dig that if you are indeed willing to be open-minded to when sources are provided or when a respectable number of editors are arguing that they want more time to see what they can do with the article in question to give them the courtesy of the benefit of the doubt. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there are no references to demonstrate notability, and this article violates WP:NOT#GUIDE by being (largely) a collection of game guide material. --Craw-daddy | T | 22:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can use previews and reviews of the game to find out of universe commentary to construct a reception section. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I looked through that preview, and it never goes into more detail than general discussion about cogs (which belong in the main Disney's Toontown Online article). -- Prod (Talk) 16:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • They are mentioned in other previews/reviews as well. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Could you please point some out? -- Prod (Talk) 20:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sure. See for example this review, which has a couple paragraphs entirely on the Cogs in a critical fashion. Notice such comments as "In December 2003, Disney introduced the first Cog Headquarters (Cog HQ) neighborhood to Toontown and since then, there have been many more. The Cog HQs adds depth and complexity for experienced players," which tells us out of universe information about when this feature was added and why it is significant. That's why I think we can add sections on Creation and Reception using this kind of information. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Textbook failure of WP:VGSCOPE and WP:GAMEGUIDE (the level ranges). The cogs do not seem to have received the considerable secondary coverage which would justify a separate article. Even if that was the case, you don't inform readers about a subject by offering them a list of componenents without context. The cogs are covered as much as needs be in the Toontown Online article. Someoneanother 00:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding the context is a fixable editorial effort and if they are covered elsewhere then that is a cause for merging and redirecting without deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This name should not be a redirect to Disney's Toontown Online since this term is far too generic. It could also reference the Coalition of Ordered Governments, which was actually my initial reaction to this page. If this page is to be kept, it should be moved somewhere else, and this page turned into a disambiguation. -- Prod (Talk) 16:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This name should in the worst case scenario be a redirect as editors and readers believe it a legitimate article and search term. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • In that case I'd suggest it should be a redirect to the Gears of War COGs, since that is a far more popular game (based on google hits and overall media coverage). It is far more valid as an article and search term in that regard. -- Prod (Talk) 20:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fair enough. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is just a list of enemies. It is game guide material and fails WP:VGSCOPE. Any material from reviews should be added to the main article. --Phirazo 16:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is no more a guide than a list of winners of the Academy Awards is a guide and it passes video game scope as lists of this nature concern key aspects of games. Material that can be added to the main article should be merged and redirected without deletion in the worst case scenario. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1.) Comparing this to the Academy Awards is apples and oranges. For one thing, the Academy Awards have a much larger impact on culture, so more coverage makes sense (see Undue weight). Most video games have enemy NPCs and I don't see what makes these enemies unique enough to warrant a seperate article. 2.)There isn't anything to merge at present time. I was saying that anything from reviews should go in the main article, not here. --Phirazo 17:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see any reason why not to cover this stuff, i.e. I don't see how if editors and readers want to work on and learn about these items, they do augment our coverage of the overall topic, they are not hoaxes, why we would just outright delete it. If we keep it and improve it, we can only benefit our coverage and help out those editors working on it. If we outright redlink it, we don't really gain anything from that. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Oscars get a lot more viewers than this game. Each of the award winners is notable on their own. This has no relation to the current discussion. -- Prod (Talk) 20:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, it may get more coverage, but the purpose of an encyclopedia is to catalog information that people will go to that encyclopedia looking for and so some people are interested in the Oscars, others are interested in Cogs. So long as it isn't total nonsense, than I see no reason not to keep it. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:33, 5 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. --PeaceNT (talk) 16:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

XEngine[edit]

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

Advertisement for non-notable software by non-notable company. Beware the ghits, since a lot of other projects are called XEgine (this article is about a "build management" system) Damiens.rf 19:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The company that designed it is a red link, and the sources are primary. I see nothing that even asserts notability, but I don't think software is speediable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 19:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete doesn't meet any notability requirements; only coverage appears to be a primary source. Shell ^babelfish 23:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable product. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:51, 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. --PeaceNT (talk) 16:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AmySue Mertens[edit]

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

Minor, local, would-be politician who did not win the position sought. Does not pass W:Bio - House of Scandal (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Definitely not notable as a politician -- did not even win the primary. May be notable as a community activist; however, there are no sources at present to support this. Notability unestablished. RayAYang (talk) 20:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 20:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 20:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:POLITICIAN and WP:ONEEVENT. Only RS attention came from running for office January-February 2008. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not notable as she failed an election and has never held an office. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 14:47, 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 redirect to List of Star Wars planets (W-Z)#Moons, merger left to editorial discretion. lifebaka++ 17:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yavin IV[edit]

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

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just a repetition of the plot sections of the Star Wars stories where Yavin IV is featured. It is therefore trivial, duplicative, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Star Wars planets for now. the article as it stands cites unreliable sources (one wiki and one directory of objects made by the company). Independent sources probably exist. Some "quasi" indpendent sources surely exist (meaning works produced under license that might be used for WP:V purposes where wookiepedia wouldn't work)--"the illustrated star wars universe" comes to mind. Also, the article currently is woefully incomplete. For one, Yavin IV is a planet in SWG, that, at least, should be included (rather than suspicions about the 'other Y-wing pilot' in New Hope). I anxiously await the howling and gnashing of teeth over the nomination of this article for deletion. I'll dig around for sources, but I suspect that notability will be (at best) marginal. In the case that we can't find sources inside of 5 days that assert notability per WP:GNG, we should redirect or delete this article. Protonk (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List_of_Star_Wars_planets_(W-Z)#Moons (a subsection under "Yavin"). Would hesitantly endorse a very selective merge -- Yavin IV is excessive plot summary, and the List of... is a little spare. Might be better instead first to copyedit/prose-ify the List of... content before considering any cut-and-paste. --EEMIV (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Cleanup, or, failing that, Redirect per above. Fairly major setting from Episode IV, i would be shocked if there wasn't enough third party sourcing out there to make a competent out-of-universe article. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge if necessary to the list of planets, which didnt need coming here. DGG (talk) 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as I have made some revisions to the article to reference some information that was previously in a trivia section, but does anyone have such books as The Complete Locations of Star Wars: Inside the Worlds of the Entire Star Wars Saga and Star Wars: The Essential Guide to Planets and Moons as they seem like logical references for any articles on Star Wars planets, moons, and other locations. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that isn't nearly enough referenced information to justify a whole article, and that second reference could be added to the first movie article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which would mean merge and redirecting then. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, because it I proposed a merger, and then only merged a sentence of a whole article and left the rest effectively deleted, that would not be a merger. Since 90% of the content of the article will be deleted, then yes, deletion is the appropriate response. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given the extent and nature of hits this term gets, I just can't see any valid reason for outright deletion and in any event, aspects of the Star Wars are encyclopedic. Few works of fiction have had multiple encyclopedias published dedicated to various aspects of them. What's good enough for multiple paper encyclopedias is surely good enough for the paperless encyclopedia. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As always, your rationale does not relate to the goals of wikipedia or its policies. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As always, my rationale is consistent with the goals and policies of encyclopedic and wikipedic tradition: "In truth, the aim of an encyclopédie is to collect all knowledge scattered over the face of the earth...All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings." - Denis Diderot explaining the goal of the Encyclopedia "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." - Jimmy Wales explaining the goal of Wikipedia What is trivia to you is not to those who worked on and come here to read this verifiable content. And even duplicative content is redirectable content. I see absolutely no compelling reason for this article to be redlinked. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As always, my rationale is consistent with the goals and policies of encyclopedic and wikipedic tradition: -- Le Grand, you've been asked repeatedly by other editors not to parrot comments. There are any number of ways you could have phrased your response to Judgesurreal. No one thinks you're clever when you change one or two words to change the meaning of someone's wording -- but, as has repeatedly been pointed out to you, it is glib, irritating and provocative. Please stop. --EEMIV (talk) 00:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making glib, irritating, and provocative replies that add nothing to the discussion. No one finds such comments clever. I am not going to legitimize or dignify nonsensical and off-topic comments. We are talking about a verifiable and notable article that should not be redlinked; not about each other and the lack of consensus the community has regarding coverage of fictional topics. I like others above have mentioned various reasons why the article should not be outright deleted. So far only one has argued for outright deletion. The article in question has existed for five years (since 2003). Obviously, that also means five years of scores of editors and thousands of readers who believe the article is consistent with what Wikipedia is. Therefore, we should be discussing how best to cover this information and not distract from the discussion by tossing in asides about the nature of each other's arguments in other disucssions. Stay on target!  :) --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not only did you not answer EEMIV's concerns, you did the exact thing he asked you not to do by repeating his comments. Then you went on an diatribe on your inclusion philosophy, when he isn't even commenting on the article but on your conduct. Can you be mature enough to answer someone's concerns in a clear, concise manner and stay on topic? You are (according to your user page at least) a professor at a university, and as such, I would hope that you do have the maturity necessary to do so. It's not a difficult request. None of us here care what deletion philosophy you have. We might disagree with it, but we respect it. All we want is for you to conduct yourself in a civil manner and stay on point. All you have to do is respond to this post with a simple affirmative that you will do so - I don't need a long message. Seriously, the path to acquiring others' respect is very easy, and the first way is your conduct, which I pray you can show here. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't answer ridiculous or even insulting comments that do not merit a response. All I want is for editors to conduct themselves in a civil and mature manner and stay on point. I have no interest in feeding into efforts to derail the discussion or being baited. A comment such as this does not advance discussion about the article and as such I replied in the manner that that comment deserved. EEMIV responding to my comment in the fashion above without acknowledging that the comment I replied to was unhelpful similarlly was off-topic and thus unconstructive. I replied to his comment in the manner that it too merited and ended with trying to get us focused back on the topic under consideration and not on each other. I even did so by having Star Wars appropriate humor ("Stay on target" is quoted from the battle fought around the moon under discussion....) Instead of helping to get the discussion on topic, your post merely continues to keep the discussion off-topic. Where you have me baffled is you asked me not to comment to your posts and as you can see below I didn't and you said as well that you don't comment on my posts unless I comment to you, which I didn't do here, and yet you went ahead and commented to me anyway. Please do not send mixed or confusing signals. Either you want to discuss with me in AfDs or you don't. I'm fine either way so long as we don't distractingly personalize things rather than productively do what we can to improve the project. Now can we please get back to the actual article under discussion, which by the way I have improved further. Thanks! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* Your inability to interact with others on even this basic a level astounds me. I see now that discourse with you on this matter is pointless. Do whatever you want. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 03:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good, then we can get back to the actual topic under discussion, which has been improved since nominated and for which I believe has potential to improve further. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - to List of Star Wars planets. The "real-world relevance" placed in the article is trivial. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Plot summary and in-universe details of a non-notable fictional location which has not received substantial coverage from sources independent of the subject. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:JNN is not a valid reason for deletion, especially when the article contains out of universe commentary and has received substantial coverage from secondary sources as indicate above. For what it's worth, i.e. to toss an additional idea, secondary sources do cover the planets collectively in a critical fashion. Note the first two paragraphs here that seem perhaps relevant to a master article on the planets in Star Wars in general. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as I am sure there are SW commentaries in sic-fi magazines etc. or could be merged into a List of Star Wars planets, and that is expanded from each. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:42, 6 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 Keep - Improvements were also in the article with sources added. --JForget 23:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polish reggae[edit]

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

I added ((db-a1)) to the article earlier today, a template which the author then simply deleted and proceeded to add a few sentences to the article, although the lack of information, lack of ((WIP)) template (or anything else from Category:Under-construction templates) and bad grammar suggest that this might go under ((db-g1)). However, I would rather bring this to the attention of others rather than go for speedy deletion again in case I'm wrong. It Is Me Here (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: nominator has changed to keep below. Skomorokh 13:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• G1 or G3 Vandalism/nonsense/misinformation, total rubbish, unsalvageable. You forgot to mention the lack of an AfD tag, though. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 19:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how this qualifies as nonsense or as vandalism. It looks to me like someone's good-faith attempt to begin an article that's akin to other similar articles such as Nigerian reggae. Let's not be in such a hurry to delete; let's see if some sources can be located. I removed the speedy tag. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing to indicate notability. No sources or reliable sources. Artene50 (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, eh mon. No reliable sources, mon. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 20:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, doesn't seem to be any evidence of notability. The only non-redlinked band in the list of examples of the genre (Vavamuffin) seems to be a worthy deletion candidate itself on first glance. I can't see anything to suggest this subgenre is going anywhere at the moment.

Switched to Keep - I'm pleasantly surprised at the variety of references Paul Erik has found. Certainly appears to be far more popular and well-documented than I expected - certainly seems notable enough now; seemingly a good article could be built from these sources. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 22:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I had no idea before I started researching this, but it appears that articles about reggae's presence internationally will typically mention Poland within the first two countries mentioned outside of Jamaica. Anyway, I've added ten references to the article. None of the sources are articles completely about Polish reggae, but all are non-trivial mentions of the topic, and it allowed me to add a fair bit of verifiable content. Keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Interesting. Let me just reiterate that when I submitted this AfD the article did look like a joke, but now I would probably have to agree that it should be kept, albeit with a ((Underconstruction)) or ((music-stub)) template. It Is Me Here (talk) 09:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, credible topic, turns up in Google Books and News searches. A well-referenced stub on a discrete, encyclopaedic topic with coverage in reliable sources and no NPOV/COI/BLP concerns means this is a net positive for the encyclopaedia. Skomorokh 13:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - credible, added another band and refs. greg park avenue (talk) 23:54, 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 for many reasons. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Egan[edit]

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

Suspected vanity page, very few google hits for someone who was the "single greatest shot stopper the game has ever seen". Prod was deleted so bringing it here. TexMurphy (talk) 18:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete since I think playing in the Kerry District League is not sufficient to pass notability for athletes. --Eastmain (talk) 18:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, maybe A7. No real claims to notability, no reliable sources, and he playes for a red linked league. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 19:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - seems to be little more than a pub player. Pictures like this one give something of an indication of the level the Kerry District League is at. "Egan attracted a lot of attention from big name clubs such as Manchester United, Boca Juniors and Italian giants AC Milan, a club Egan had supported as a boy. Despite many million pound offers, a loyal Egan decided to remain at his beloved ‘Ics’ during the transfer window, a decision he would later describe as ‘the biggest mistake of his [my] life’" is obviously just a load of bullshit -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - complete rubbish. Either a piss-take or an in-joke, either way something to be got rid off as soon as possible. - fchd (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. Complete and utter bull. Nfitz (talk) 07:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable as evidenced by the lack of reliable sources. I can find none in google news[6] so fails to be verifiable also. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per nom. I did notice he kept getting added to Goalkeeper (association football)#Notable goalkeepers, but this was before the article was created. --Jimbo^[online] 12:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 16:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per others. Possibly speedy. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:53, 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 withdrawn by nominator. Ѕandahl 20:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Willie Anderson (rugby coach)[edit]

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

There is some outside coverage on google, but it's stretching it to say multiple. I saw two BBC articles, one of which was an op ed written by this gent. Fails WP:BIO Traditional unionist (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Played 27 times for the Ireland national rugby union team (some of those as captain), thus passing WP:ATHLETE at a canter. Tons of significant coverage just on the BBC website. Gr1st (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I didn't see those, I don't know why, Withdrawn as a result!Traditional unionist (talk) 20:18, 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 keep. --PeaceNT (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Uribe[edit]

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

This individual is non-notable. Article is strictly promotional; not encyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainmaker2005 (talk • contribs)

• Comment - Procedural relisting from malformed nom.[7][8] -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• No vote yet The person seems notable enough in his career. As of yet there are no sources however. Northwestgnome (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Seems notable enough, it just lacks sources as Northwestgnome remarks. I think though such sources can be found. So#Why 18:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep also. I have a problem with the sourcing also, but since it's not self-promotional I'd say give the article a chance to flourish. --Quartermaster (talk) 18:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Take a look at this item: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-63312712.html (and note that the George Uribe described in the highbeam item also has a master's degree from George Washington University). Sometimes what makes someone notable is the bad stuff. --Eastmain (talk) 18:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I see no evidence of notability. Deb (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep The article seems notable, it just needs sources. Definitely not a vanity page, if that is what you are thinking. Tezkag72 (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, none of those things listed in the bio adds up to notability. Corvus cornix_talk 21:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Solid keep as the topic is frequently covered, both in passing and substantially in reliable sources,:[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]. Notability not in doubt given the Keyes' and Jenkins campaigns and associated controversy. No concerns about writing a verifiable, neutral, non-stub article on the topic. Skomorokh 13:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:04, 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 --JForget 23:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Separation of males and females in Jewish law[edit]

Separation of males and females in Jewish law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Complete POV push. Article does not describe a mainstream point of view, but rather is an essay containing someone's own minority views of halakha (Jewish law) stated as fact, with no sources. Xyz7890 (talk) 17:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I am sure this does not represent the mainstream of Jewish practice. It makes the Jews look more extreme than the Taliban. I don't know if the author was serious or not. Northwestgnome (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Reads like an opinion article with no sources to back up their views.--patrick.c.knight (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete Although I think it can be written to reflect NPOV, as the topic itself would be encyclopedic, the problem is that it would need to be completely rewritten and nothing in the current article can be reused for that. Would be the job for a scholar in Jewish law to write again. So#Why 18:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not only does this article have no sources (thereby failing WP:V), it also fails WP:NPOV, as can be most clearly seen with phrases such as 'many [Jews] who claim to be Orthodox [do not adhere to a certain rule]' and 'The Torah states that it is forbidden to "gaze at idols." "Idols" in this refers is a reference to women.' - again, a personal interpretation and is in breach of WP:NOR as it does not include any sources. It Is Me Here (talk) 18:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 23:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for later editing. Per SoWhy, the subject's suitable for an encyclopaedia. Per pretty much everyone, this article fails WP:NPOV but that's grounds for editing rather than deletion.--I do suggest that the whole article should be replaced with a brief stub, reading something like "Jewish law mandates segregation of males and females in certain circumstances," and tagged requesting expert attention.--S Marshall (talk) 00:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as classic POV fork. the subject is indeed encyclopedic, and highly so, and it is appropriate to present fully the traditional point of view. And so we do: we have the very general Role of women in Judaism, an article talking more specifically but still as an overview, about the traditional law, Tzeniut, and the more specific ones Negiah and Yichud--none of them referenced here, though I cannot believe the author of this material does not know the terms. Not every aspect is treated as fully in the existing articles as they could be. We need to expand these & we easily can--there is no shortage of material. The specific points in this POV article are most of them a matter of long-continuing dispute even within traditional Orthodox Judaism, and a very full treatment from the Talmud and Responsa could be given for each individual sentence. There are accessible encyclopedic references to use. I note that the article does not even cite the literature--and that is because it would show that while the general principles are what most orthodox Jews generally follow, the details of observance show every possible variation. I notice also there is not even an attempt to show what particular group's interpretation is being followed. (The appropriate redirect for this is in my opinion the most general article Role of women in Judaism ) DGG (talk) 02:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hu DGG: A redirect to Role of women in Judaism would not be correct because the topic here is about men and women in Judaism. A more appropriate merge and redirect would be to to Tzniut ("Modesty in Jewish law") which deals with the same core issues. IZAK (talk) 18:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OR in essay style. As the article mentions it represents a POV that goes considerably beyond mainstream Orthodox Jewish behavior. It describes standards that go beyond the rules of modesty articulated in the codes of standard Orthodox Judaism. It includes elements and claims with which I am personally not familiar. --Shirahadasha (talk) 04:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to Tzniut ("Modesty in Jewish law") which deals with the same core issues. The topic and heading are valid and serious but the contents of the article have been poorly written. Perhaps another editor will be able to do a better job with it in the future. IZAK (talk) 18:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Merge and Redirect If the article had citations, specifying which community/rabbi believed in this radical approach, it would be useful information in the context of an article presenting more mainstream opinions. Given that the author has contributed productively to Wikipedia previously, it may be worth moving the article to a staging area or the author's talk page, and ask the author for citations.Yudel (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wouldn't object to userifying if the author believes it would be possible to source it and otherwise improve it before attempting to present it again. In addition to sourcing and ensuring the views expressed reflect established opinions, I would recommend that an article give more weight to mainstream practices and not offer editorial opinions on which view is correct. Because some of these issues and differences involve matters of custom, philosophy, and sociology, not just pure Halakha, there might be some additional perspectives as well. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 03:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:OR problems, to put it mildly. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Shirahadasha — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- This one gets a "Wow" for daring. It not only reads like a diatribe, it reads like a ranting diatribe! The tzniut article can include this information, and it would probably be better to start over rather than use this even as a template, seeing its pointed, flowless, discrete format. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Shirahadasha. OR essay. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Shukhan Aruk Even HaEzer 20 can be used as a source for some of this, but it goes so far beyond the shukhan aruk as to be close to OR. Jon513 (talk) 20:12, 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. --PeaceNT (talk) 16:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Straight Flush (horse)[edit]

Straight Flush (horse) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a biography of a non-notable racehorse. It has been tagged for no sources and wikify for over a year with no substantial edits. The horse's only noteworthiness is being related to his half-brother secretariat. Rather than wikify I propose for deletion. patrick.c.knight (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no independent assertion of notability. There is one citation to a very long article on secretariat.com a website dedicated to his brother but despite the articles length it does nothing to establish notability, there is nothing special in that story that you would not find in any of the hundreds of other horse adoptions that go on each year other than this one was published by the adopter. - Icewedge (talk) 17:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agreeing with that, there is no reason to think this horse more notable than others. It would be different if it won prestigious races but I cannot find anything like that. So#Why 18:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notability is not inhereted. Secretariat is clearly notable, but this horse doesn't seem to have done anything worthy of note except be vaguely related to him. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 20:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable and non-verifable. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:51, 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. John254 03:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hendrik Hudson Hotel[edit]

Hendrik Hudson Hotel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This building was conceived but never built. All of the information is speculative, and the building itself is over 100 years old. Nothing about it is particularly notable. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The proposed hotel was notable enough for The New York Times to write about, and the proposal may have had some influence on other hotel designs. --Eastmain (talk) 18:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The topic has been covered in multiple independent reliable sources. A verifiable non-stub on an encyclopaedic topic of interest to our readers, with no conflict of interest/spam/vandlaism/promotion etc. concerns; a net positive to the encyclopaedia without a doubt. Skomorokh 13:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:06, 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. John254 03:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Performance Institute[edit]

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

US think tank. Only their intern has worked on the article so I would like a notabilty check. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - nonnotable entity written by a person with a serious conflict of interest. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article already had adequate references, but they were hidden. I reformatted the references, and I think that notability is clear now. --Eastmain (talk) 18:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agreeing with Eastmain, it needs some wikifying and copy-editing maybe, but is referenced now. So#Why 19:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable. I think therefore I tank. RMHED (talk) 23:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable. The Performance Institute came up in an internship search and I was trying to find more info on the think tank. Hopefully more people can build upon this page. Bluetrane86 (talk) 01:45, 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. Keep argument does not provide sources to establish notability. lifebaka++ 18:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EzMess[edit]

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

Non-notable defunct project by a new Wikipedian. 72 Ghits. Apparently, no independent sourcing. Damiens.rf 17:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed, the article mentions the project was initially called "EcMess", and that word has a lot more GHits. Maybe some independent coverage may be found, but I have seen none so far. --Damiens.rf 18:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - House of Scandal (talk) 19:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I just added this article as a very early example of Comet technology. I really don't see a COI problem here, mainly because the project is inactive and it was added as a historical entry.

If you people believe that the description I gave is biased or poses a conflict of interests then I propose that the entry be reduced to just the historical data. Like so:

During 1999 an argentine team lead by Nicolás Echániz based in Buenos Aires developed EcMess[1] (later renamed to EzMess) which was an early example of event-driven web development, a technique later known as Comet. It consisted of a cross-browser web based instant messenger. The server side of the application was written in Python, based on Sam Rushing's Medusa[2] -an extensible Internet server framework which was also the codebase for the Zope server. The client side was javascript.

It might also be more appropriate to rename the entry to EcMess, considering the Ghits for each name. I don't find arguments or positions here that would need support, other than the fact that this thing existed and was created in 1999 which makes it a very early and quite complex example of Comet. It's just that. There were public uses of the group capabilities of EzMess in it's early years, if that data is relevant I may contact the people involved. This entry was created as a historical entry related to Comet. I added it separately in order to avoid adding more trouble to the already conflicted Comet article.

I'd rather modify this article and make it useful than delete it altogether.

Regards nicoechaniz —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom. If this is a notable example of a technology, then merge the appropriate content to that article.  RGTraynor  22:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Alright. If the majority here agrees to that then I'll add it to the Comet article.nicoechaniz —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you know about some discussion in some reliable source about this EzMess being a notable example of such and such technology? The comet article is still in the progress of removing some terribly unsourced/badly-sourced passages, and it wouldn't benefit from the addition of more of them at this point.

  Regardless of that, if you know about some reasonable amount of coverage of EzMess by reliable sources, it could stay as an article of its own (i.e., not be deleted). For instance, have it been reviewed in some (respectable) tech journal? Have its demise been noted by the press? Anything? --Damiens.rf 21:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• this is a notable example of Comet technology as it was developed when this technology was just being cenceived and didn't even have a name. EzMess was a fully functional web based Instant Messenger back in 1999 -still functional today-. Regarding reliability of sources I will quote you Damien and then add a proposal:

"Stop the presses! I've found some references for Meebo+comet on the official blogs for meebo developers." I was the head developer for EzMess and if you prefer me to add an entry to my blog about this matter so that you can add EzMess as a very early Comet example into the historical section of the Comet article, I'll have no objection to that. I'd like to make clear that the only thing I want to say is: "EzMess was an example of the early use of Comet technology to create a web based instant messenger back in 1999." This is the only affirmation there and you can verify it by asking me or the other developers involved or even by looking at the code if you believe that's necessary, I can make it available for review to anyone interested. Thanks to you all for taking the time to evaluate this.nicoechaniz —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Comet" was never "conceived" as a technology. It is just a name invented to tell apart some techniques from others. And since "Comet" is a neologism created to describe something that already existed, there's not inherently notable in having used comet before its invention.

Mentioning meboo on the comet article is ok because meboo is notable (of course, as long as we can show it uses comet). The same criteria may be applied to Ezmess: If it turns out to be considered notable, we can mention it at the neologism article. --Damiens.rf 14:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Damiens thanks for your deep insights on the Comet subject, I hadn't realized you were an authoritative expert on this matter, I thought you were just a guy striving for correctness and accountability of information. I'll leave this conflicted matter to you and Jacobs. It's been almost nice sharing with you.nicoechaniz —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:50, 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. No new sources provided and old sources debunked. lifebaka++ 18:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sheraton Doha Resort & Convention Hotel[edit]

Sheraton Doha Resort & Convention Hotel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I need to prefix this nomination by acknowledging that a fine effort was made to salvage this article, which was up for Speedy Delete earlier today. Alas, I am sorry to say the article at this point in time (1.15pm ET on 30 July) fails WP:CORP and WP:RS. Don’t be misled by the quantity of the references – spend a few minutes reviewing their quality. Three sources cited in the article's References section (Peninsula On-line, Gulf Times and AME Info) appear to have rerun the Sheraton’s press releases verbatim – read the "articles" carefully, then see other hotel-related articles in these online sources. You can see they are just reposting press releases and they have no original reporting in regard to their hotel news. As for the references cited in the New York Times and Socialist Worker, in both cases the hotel is barely mentioned in passing as being the location of a meeting. As per WP:CORP: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." Ecoleetage (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. AME Info has indeed run the hotel's press releases verbatim. Gulf Times and the Peninsula newspaper's articles appear to have been written by newspaper staff, rather than being press releases, so I think they are acceptable as references. I think the World Trade Organization's Doha Development Round is sufficiently notable that the fact that it began with a meeting at this hotel is relevant. --Eastmain (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The WTO's Doha Development Round passes Wikipedia's standards for notability. The hotel does not. Notability is not inherited. And please take a few minutes to read the contents of Peninsula On-line and Gulf Times -- all they did was rerun press releases. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-yep, it's definitely strange how the works cited copy each other...--Forego (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The "sources" just restate the press release from the hotel. I still see nothing that comprises significant third party coverage. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 21:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: WP:N specifically says 2 third party sources, not repetetive copies of the same thing. Ironholds 16:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per below sources. A hotel of this size and nature is almost guaranteed to be notable, so if the sources below are not enough there are almost certainly plenty of others. Here are 76 hits in the New York Times alone[25] (one would have to check each one out, but at least some look like significant coverage). It does the encyclopedia no good to nitpick by poking holes in a subject area like this where most of the comparable institutions are covered. Wikidemo (talk) 23:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The references are crummy and the subject is not notable. Director33 (talk) 23:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Let's analyze the references and external links one by one.
  • References

1. ^ Sheraton Doha Hotel & Resort Official Website - About Sheraton Doha Hotel & Resort Retrieved 30-07-2008 This is a primary source, and appears in the references only because there is an inline reference to the hotel's website. 2. ^ "Sheraton opens Irish restaurant", Peninsula On-line (Qatar) (2007-12-14). Retrieved on 2008-07-30. This is a newspaper article, identified as "Source ::: The Peninsula". The opening of a new (and perhaps expensive) restaurant is news. 3. ^ Callinicos, Alex (Tuesday 29 July 2008). "The WTO: trading in the rights of the poor", Socialist Worker. Retrieved on 2008-07-30. This is a newspaper column. 4. ^ Sharkey, Joe (May 11, 2004). "Business Travel: On The Road; Friendlier Skies on an Unfriendly Planet", The New York Times. Retrieved on 2008-07-30. This is a newspaper article from The New York Times. 5. ^ "QNH invests more than QR40m on renovations", Peninsula On-line (Qatar) (July 10, 2007). Retrieved on 2008-07-30. This also is a newspaper article, identified as "Source ::: The Peninsula"

• "Hotel Happenings: Sheraton’s Sweet Sleeper Bed", Peninsula On-line (Qatar) (Jul 15, 2008). Retrieved on 2008-07-30.

This also is a newspaper article, identified as "Source ::: The Peninsula"

• "Hotel wins seven travel awards", Gulf Times (Sunday, 27 May, 2007). Retrieved on 2008-07-30.

This is a newspaper article, credited to "Staff Reporter".

• • External links

• Sheraton Doha Hotel & Resort Official Website

This is a primary source.

• Qatar National Hotels Company – Sheraton Doha Resort & Convention Hotel

This is a primary source (of the hotel's owner, rather than of Sheraton, the manager.

• "Summer mango treats at the Sheraton. Sheraton Doha Resort & Convention Hotel begun its month-long festival of Mango & Pancakes preparations.", AME Info (United Arab Emirates) (July 5, 2008). Retrieved on 2008-07-30.

Press release, distributed through AME Info.

• "Sheraton Doha launches the Link @ Sheraton", AME Info (United Arab Emirates) (Thursday, August 30, 2007). Retrieved on 2008-07-30.

Press release, distributed through AME Info.

Comment back First, that listing of New York Times hits is sloppy, with most of the stories having nothing to do with the subject at hand. As for the value of the Peninsula Newspaper -- I am sorry, but their "articles" don't look much like articles (what serious newspaper runs a piece without a byline about the installation of a fancy bed in a hotel?). No matter how you slice it, this doesn't add up. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:52, 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. Single keep argument is highly unconvincing. lifebaka++ 18:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Johnson (bioethics activist)[edit]

Larry Johnson (bioethics activist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article very likely created by user with a conflict of interest (creating editor is an SPA devoted to pushing the belief that Ted Williams' remains have been mishandled). References provided do mention this person, but do not actually substantiate any of the material in the article, and once that's removed no claim of notability exists. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Even if everything claimed in the article is true, Mr. Johnson would still be only notable for one thing and the article would still be a coatrack. The material should be covered in Ted Williams. Northwestgnome (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - House of Scandal (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have it on very good intelligence that this particular activist’s name will be mention quite often after the first of the year, as he is currently stirring up politicians to back his cause. It would be nice if Wikipedia was proactive and had a little background information on their site about this individual. Delete if you want, but I think it’s a bad idea. Just my two cents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.16.238 (talk) 13:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:NOTCRYSTAL on the merits of keeping him because his name will be mentioned quite often in the future. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:18, 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 redirect to Purple Line (Washington Metro) as delete and redirect arguments are the same and redirection is preferable to deletion. lifebaka++ 18:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Langley Park (Washington Metro)[edit]

Langley Park (Washington Metro) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Future station stub, some argue that WP:Crystal applies. Dkendr (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Purple Line (Washington Metro). Until shovels hit the ground (and even that doesn't mean much given the 70-year history of the Second Avenue Subway), it seems very premature to have articles for individual station. Nfitz (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: While my own preference per WP:CRYSTAL (this is a proposed line, not one that has been officially put on the drawing board) would be to redirect, as I did a few days ago, User:Dkendr is the creator of the article, and has before now hotly maintained both in edit summaries and on talk pages that the article should be maintained, and has reverted redirects to it and similar articles. This strikes me, therefore, as a WP:POINT nomination.  RGTraynor  17:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge & Redirect Until ground is broken this article fails WP:CRYSTAL. Lots of proposed lines for lots of transit systems exist. Individual station articles is overkill on a proposed line. -Djsasso (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect I'm all in favor of having separate articles for planned stations, such as the Silver Line ones, but those plans are a lot more concrete than the Purple Line, which is still just a proposal at this point. According to The Washington Post last week [26], the Maryland Transit Administration is still studying "potential routes while comparing light rail and bus rapid transit options." Until it decides more specifically where these stations will be (if it still continues pursuing the Purple Line at all), I think it's best to hold off on individual articles. Dmp348 (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge Stubs always have the ability to grow, and therefore are not grounds for deletion or forced merging. Many future rail stations have a lot of coverage before they reach groundbreaking. Sebwite (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue with these ones are that they haven't even been approved yet. So they may never ground break. -Djsasso (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or possibly merge per WP:CRYSTAL. A proposed station on a proposed line really is a bit too much. Its not too hard to recreate the article if it actually gets underway. Tavix (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Purple Line (Washington Metro). The proposed line itself clearly has sufficient coverage in reliable sources to justify an article, but there's no content here and no purpose for the article on the proposed station. --Stormie (talk) 12:35, 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 redirect to Purple Line (Washington Metro) as preferable to deletion. lifebaka++ 18:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

University of Maryland (Washington Metro)[edit]

University of Maryland (Washington Metro) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Future station stub, some argue that WP:Crystal applies Dkendr (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Purple Line (Washington Metro). Until shovels hit the ground (and even that doesn't mean much given the 70-year history of the Second Avenue Subway), it seems very premature to have articles for individual station. Nfitz (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If planning is sufficiently advanced that land has been acquired for the project (and I am not sure about this), then keeping the article as a "future station" probably makes sense. --Eastmain (talk) 16:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge & Redirect Until ground is broken this article fails WP:CRYSTAL. Lots of proposed lines for lots of transit systems exist. Individual station articles is overkill on a proposed line. -Djsasso (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect I'm all in favor of having separate articles for planned stations, such as the Silver Line ones, but those plans are a lot more concrete than the Purple Line, which is still just a proposal at this point. According to The Washington Post last week [27], the Maryland Transit Administration is still studying "potential routes while comparing light rail and bus rapid transit options." Until it decides more specifically where these stations will be (if it still continues pursuing the Purple Line at all), I think it's best to hold off on individual articles. Dmp348 (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge Stubs always have the ability to grow, and therefore are not grounds for deletion or forced merging. Many future rail stations have a lot of coverage before they reach groundbreaking. Sebwite (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue with these ones are that they haven't even been approved yet. So they may never ground break. -Djsasso (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or possibly merge per WP:CRYSTAL. A proposed station on a proposed line really is a bit too much. Its not too hard to recreate the article if it actually gets underway. Tavix (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: While my own preference per WP:CRYSTAL (this is a proposed line, not one that has been officially put on the drawing board) would be to redirect, as I did a few days ago, User:Dkendr is the creator of the article, and has before now hotly maintained both in edit summaries and on talk pages that the article should be maintained, reverting redirects to it and similar articles. This strikes me, therefore, as a WP:POINT nomination, as with the two similar articles he created and AfDed today.  RGTraynor  22:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Purple Line (Washington Metro). The proposed line itself clearly has sufficient coverage in reliable sources to justify an article, but there's no content here and no purpose for the article on the proposed station. --Stormie (talk) 12:35, 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.