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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gharwali Baharwali[edit]

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

Article's subject is a TV show that has yet to be produced or broadcast. Its notability is questionable and is difficult to ascertain before it's hit the airwaves. Suggest deletion with possible recreation at a later date if, by then, it has achieved notability. Lincolnite (talk) 01:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lincolnite, I agree that this page doesn't meet wikipedia's standard. I only started this topic because one of my friend said he saw the Promos on air, but just to make sure, I went back and read the articles, it seems like the show is not starting yet. So thanks for help, I will just leave the deletion tag on there and will re-create the page if the show hit the airwaves. Thanx again!!! Survir 01 June 2008, 13:44 UTC

Speedy delete per page creator's request. — Lincolnite (talk) 20:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, possibly Speedy It is likely that verifiable sources are out there so that this article isn't merely crystal balling, so I'd suggest giving the creator a bit more time - he may have said otherwise - but taking this to AfD thirty six minutes after creation? WilliamH (talk) 17:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I would have voted keep per [1], but I will respect the author's wishes (as it is just a stub). –thedemonhog talk • edits 03:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a promotion website. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as crystal balling. There's nothing here that can't be recreated in five seconds once the show starts airing. Ford MF (talk) 02:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted speedily as CSD G11, blatant advertising. However, it is noted that most of the comments supporting a keep were from user accounts and IPs with almost no contribution histories. Moreover, many editors received email and talk page spam asking that they make keep comments here and User:Radioinfoguy, creator of this article, says he is Joe Kleon, the article's subject. I suggest that before any deletion review, a request to checkuser be made for the many single purpose accounts which commented on this project page. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Radioinfoguy Gwen Gale (talk) 01:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Kleon[edit]

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

Largely self-promotional biographical article about a non-notable local DJ. InDeBiz1 Review me! | Talk to me! 23:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

• How do you know how notable he is? Are you from anywhere close to his state? The article has links to his radio broadcasts, from across the country. He also appears to have worked with many big name rock artists and produced a record by at least one. The article may need some cleanup, but I feel it belongs on Wikipedia. InDeBiz1 doesn't appear to have been an editor for very long and I feel he is making a mistake about this article. Englishliterature (talk) 00:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)— Englishliterature (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Not that it's particularly relevant, but I am rather familiar with the radio landscape of northeast Ohio, having been a part of it myself, at one point. --InDeBiz1 Review me! | Talk to me! 00:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, as you have contributed to the article in question, it's not exactly appropriate for you to weigh in on an AfD discussion... particularly when your main concern appears to be that I have not "been an editor for very long." As they say (reviewing your contributions, the first of which was less than one week ago), "Pot, meet kettle." --InDeBiz1 Review me! | Talk to me! 00:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now you are judge, as to who can weigh in on an AfD discussion? I did not "contribute" to the article, I performed some cleanup and found some additional references to add. Try to get your facts straight, next time. As a commenter says below, I don't think it is appropriate for YOU to weigh in on this article, as you DO have a conflict of interest, claiming to be in radio.

Respectfully, my position in the industry actually makes me more than qualified to weigh in on AfD discussions related to it, as I am able to provide additional information that other "non-industry" editors may not know where to find. Also, any editing action to the article, regardless of what it is, constitutes contributing to the article. Regards, --InDeBiz1 (talk) 00:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this article, Just for the record. Englishliterature (talk) 01:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Youngstown radio is not the same a Cleveland, Akron, or Canton. Most stations in Cleveland, Akron, and Canton cannot be heard in Youngtown. I am willing to try to make this article suitable for Wikipedia. I would think a 20 year career, bring heard virtually across the counry, at one time, or another, and work with many national artists would make one "notable." I hope the article can stay. Radioinfoguy (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC) — Radioinfoguy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

User:Radioinfoguy, creator of this article, says he is Kleon. -- Hoary (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Respectfully, your point is irrelevant. Yes, I worked in Youngstown. However, I am very familiar with all of the northeast Ohio markets. Regardless, I stand by my nomination that this article is nothing more than COI-influenced self-promotion and has no business on Wikipedia. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 21:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not notable Duffbeerforme (talk) 04:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Joe Kleon has a long and varied career in music, radio, and other media outlets. I've followed his career for more than two decades - and he has proven himself as an on-air talent. I think the article should stay. bkh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.66.110.254 (talk) 10:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC) — 71.66.110.254 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep It seems indebiz is the one with a conflict of interest, in this matter, as he says he is in radio. Kleon is much more than just a DJ, as he has produced records by notable rock stars and worked as a photographer for many rock stars. Several of these CDs are distributed worldwide. Kleon's network radio broadcasts have been heard in the majority of U.S. states. His CNN radio broadcasts were heard in several countries. Why not help clean up the article, indebiz? Kleon's talk page says “This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography” Clevelandmusic24 (talk) 11:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC) — Clevelandmusic24 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep Seems notable to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.186.207.103 (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Kleon's main claim to fame (according to Kleon/Radioinfoguy) is that he is known for engineering, recording, co-producing, and mastering the 2003 CD Pete Way (Alive In Cleveland), by UFO (band) bass player Pete Way. I'd never heard of this, so I took a look, and read: Alive In Cleveland is a live release, from legendary UFO (band) bassist Pete Way. Recorded October 4, 2002, at The Revolution, in Parma, Ohio, "Alive In Cleveland" was mixed over two days at 609 Recording, in Bedford, Ohio and released shortly after, as an exclusive release on Pete's official website http://www.peteway.net. Majestic Rock Records, released it worldwide in 2003. Indeed, I hadn't even heard of Pete Way. The article on him is devoid of a single legend. (Or is he a legend, and the whole business thus a hoax?) Anyway, genuinely or legendarily, he made this CD. The article on it was written by Kleon/Radioinfoguy. It's released on Majestic Rock, which doesn't have an article and indeed is hardly mentioned in Wikipedia. It all seems very minor. -- Hoary (talk) 06:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This comment was vandalized and then restored. -- Hoary (talk) 10:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Striking out of "Delete" (see below). -- Hoary (talk) 10:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pete Way put out his first album in 1968, with UFO and is sill going strong. They have toured the world many times and Pete's discography is very respectable. Bands like Def Leppard and Iron Maiden list Pete as a major influence. Kleon is known for a lot more than just working with Pete Way. His 20+ year radio career has earned him respect in the business and he was at the top of the ratings at Cleveland's WNCX, Savannah's WZAT and WIXV, and at Canton's WRQK. His work for radio networks has been heard in over 40 states. Just last week, the founding members of classic rock icons Molly Hatchet released a CD, under the name Gator Country, which was recorded by Kleon. His work in concert photography has found him working with many major label recording artists. just in the last year, recorded bands on Columbia records, Warner/Reprise records, Universal Records, and others. You call that minor? I say he is notable and the article should stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.67.231 (talk) 12:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Clearly not notable, despite the spirited defense here. Is it time to open a sockpuppetry investigation? - Eureka Lott 13:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the, ahem, UIDs and IPs without long editing histories who so remarkably find their way to this AfD do seem to format their messages both perversely and similarly. I reformatted a bunch earlier, but now we have the type-a-few-words-and-then-hit-Enter style, which takes a bit longer to reformat. I guess this will remain puppet-o-rama, at least until somebody remembers the name of the "Leave your meat 'n' socks at home!" template that can be slapped on the top. (Personally I'm in favor of meat 'n' socks: they have a certain comedy value.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I vote to keep this article. Joe Kleon is a top notch radio personality, who has earned much respect in quite a few different areas of the music business. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.208.187.186 (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC) — 24.208.187.186 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • This comment was later edited (here) by Special:Contributions/24.252.245.173. -- Hoary (talk) 22:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article has a lot of information and sources and the subject is notable. Keep it.
  • This comment was first written (here) by Special:Contributions/24.26.139.142, and edited (here) by Special:Contributions/24.252.245.173. (It occurs to me that the two IPs might not be unrelated.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This user spammed me with a link to his article protesting its deletion. GreenReaper (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (switching back because of this spam on my talk page). Aside from all the keep comments here being from blatant sock/meat puppets of sundry kinds, to work in broadcasting is not an inherently notable career. This person is not widely noted in articles/stories of which he is the topic by independent and reliable sources. I would speedy delete this straight off as blatant, personal conflict of interest advertising, but I'd rather watch this AfD play out into maybe a laundry run before doing that. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this AfD has been disrupted and broken by too many comments from editors with limited contribution histories. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I was spammed as well, despite the fact that this isn't my area of knowledge or interests. (I haven't lived in Ohio in 22 years, and even then it was Columbus.) I cannot judge his notability or lack thereof from what is here, so I leave it to others to decide. But it's a red flag when email from a stranger accuses Wikipedia of "censorship" because of an AFD on an article about the person doing the emailing. Sorry. Decisions to keep or delete should be based on established criteria of notability, not personal involvement and canvassing. --Karen | Talk | contribs 23:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The user spammed me as well, and I replied telling him that while I disagreed with this deletion being termed "censorship," I would vote keep if I found the article to be notable. Unfortunately, after reviewing the arguments here, I have concluded that it is not, which is not helped by the only significant defense being from sockpuppets anyway. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 00:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The justifications for his notability are weak and seem to establish his importance by virtue of association with slightly more notable people. In addition, article was made in bad faith as personal promotion, because most of the edits are from Joe Kleon (User:Radioinfoguy) himself. In addition, the images referenced at the end of the article are in a similar state and should be deleted as routine cleanup. User:Radioinfoguy seems to have written a vanity article on himself, employed sockpuppetry on its AfD, and spammed editors to save his article, for pete's sake. Such a "top-notch radio personality" has done a good job of making himself look pretty conceited and arrogant.

“

From: Radioinfoguy (joekleon@yahoo.com), An article on myself is being primed for deletion. If you could make a comment against the censorship and deletion of the article, on the deletion discussion page, it would be sincerely appreciated. The article is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Kleon Thanks for your consideration. Joe

”

Mazin07^C₪_T 00:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Is it time to suggest closing this AfD as Delete, given that the only Keep votes appear to be coming from the same user? --InDeBiz1 (talk) 00:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:SNOW, yes. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think so. We know that at least one (perhaps only one) person in favor of retaining the article claims to be keen to improve it and is sufficiently articulate and knowledgable to make a better article. (Whether this article would establish notability is another question.) I'd let this run its course, particularly as to do otherwise might well bring accusations of premature decision, unfairness, etc. -- Hoary (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A mild notability, to be sure, but notable nonetheless. And the article is absurdly well referenced, considering what it is. Ford MF (talk) 02:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was not fully aware of Wikipedia's policies, when the article was created. Someone wrote a shell of an article, which was submitted. I then began editing the article, along with several others, after it was vandalized several times. Many reliable sources were used for the article, such as The Canton Repository Newspaper (circulation over 60,000), two largely distributed Cleveland music publications, Scene Magazine (circulation 100,000), and The Free Times (circulation 70,000), www.blabbermouth.net (visited by more than a million people each month) and www.bwbk.com, as well as Def Leppard's UK website, Alice Cooper's audio archive, Informer Magazine, radio trade publication FMQB, answers.com, Artist Direct, and others. As of this point in time, I will recuse myself from editing this article. Early on, I asked several people for help editing the article, with no results. I know I will be continually slammed by the Wikipedia "elite," and I guess I have it coming, for not fully understanding the rules. I would sure love the help of a Wikipedia admin, to make this article suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. As to the claim that all the votes to keep the article came from one person, that is just not true. You have my sincere apologies and I respectfully hope the article, with help from those more knowledgeable then myself, can somehow be allowed to stay. Radioinfoguy (talk) 02:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The contribution history shows you created this article, your first edit did not come "after it was vandalized several times," but was the first. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The idea for the article was not from myself and the "stub" (I guess that is what you call the beginning of an article) of the article was not created by myself. It was given to me and submitted using the name radioinfoguy and since the article is about me, the user name was attributed to me, by someone I know. There are several computers, using a shared IP, in my home and in my studio. I added information and enlisted a few individuals to help edit the article, who also used the same radioinfoguy name, so that the beginning of the article was not just the opinion of one person, or just myself. Was I wrong for becoming involved with the article? From reading Wiki policies, I know now the answer is yes. I became involved, because I wanted accurate and well sourced information to be used. That is all. If you don't believe me and the article is deleted, so be it. I really don't have any reason to be dishonest, since the article is probably going to be deleted anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radioinfoguy (talk • contribs) 02:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Do you share the same Wikipedia account Radioinfoguy with other people? Gwen Gale (talk) 03:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was shared with me, but yes, as explained above. Radioinfoguy (talk) 04:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This AfD had an abrasive start and didn't get much better. I might have exacerbated the atmosphere with some details of my own delete vote. Since we haven't already done so, I suggest that we now stop wondering about which writer is who, and so forth, and instead concentrate on the article. Although I voted "delete" I already see some value in it and am willing to have my mind changed. Radioinfoguy is (or are) as welcome as anybody else to edit the article, which I do think is salvageable. (I'm not going to edit it myself because I'm busy with other stuff.) -- Hoary (talk) 04:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by PametRiver (talk • contribs) 09:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vandalism-only account, now given an indefinite block. -- Hoary (talk) 10:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The last vote was by the person (PametRiver) who has been adding vandalism to my page. Now, they have created an account and added valdalism to this AfD page. I received a warning saying the edit cannot be undone. Can someone please undo this vandalism edit? Thank you. This person was already placed on a temporary ban, by Hoary. -- Radioinfoguy (talk) 10:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're mostly right. Yes indeed, this person messed around with a comment here. He's now history. You're only wrong in the bit about undoing vandalism: anybody, certainly including yourself, is free to undo blatant vandalism. Meanwhile, thank you for bringing this to our attention. -- Hoary (talk) 10:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC) NB if there's any more vandalism of this AfD then I for one shan't have any qualms about protecting it. -- Hoary (talk) 10:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Yes, I think the article as it is now can be kept, per Ford MF above. The article started in an unfortunate way; it's now a lot better. I don't approve of either puppetry or spamming, but for an AfD to be marred by either doesn't necessarily condemn the article. -- Hoary (talk) 10:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, it's got that smell of self-promotion about it. This could be significantly reduced by a proper copy-edit (and while you're at it, please read MOS). Although there's an impressive number of references, some of them could hardly be said to be authoritative, so please audit the ref section. This is by no means an article that WP can be proud of, although I'd stop short of deleting it right now. If deletion doesn't occur, it would be wise to keep this on our radar screens. TONY (talk) 12:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This article is horrible. It is absolute garbage, complete and utter filth. It is putrid and vile. Having said that, for some strange reason I LOVE it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hornhead (talk • contribs) 13:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC) — Hornhead (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep The subject's list of accomplishments, say "do not delete" to me. — 67.197.55.84 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep Kleon may not be Rush Limbaugh, but his work for two decades in radio, his work with many major-label artists, in different contexts,(photography, radio, recording) makes him notable in my book. Keep the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.123.224 (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC) — 72.193.123.224 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep If you delete Joe Kleon I may commit suicide. And you will have to live with that guilt always. Lemcup (talk) 13:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC) — Lemcup (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment I copied the following entry, from my talk page. I think the person meant for it to be here. If I am wrong, or it needs removed, please do so.

Radioinfoguy (talk) 14:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about how this page was created. I don't care if Joe wrote it himself. I simply want to learn about him, and this is the best way. Without the page, it is much more difficult to learn about this highly notable DJ. Leigh8959 (talk) 05:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Joe Kleon is a famous DJ. I find his biography and accomplishments to be quite fascinating. Please do not delete his page. If you do, you will diminish Wikipedia considerably. If you wish Wikipedia to be successful and respected, you must keep important articles such as Joe Kleon. PHDoctorate (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC) — PHDoctorate (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • And I note that you further state that Deleting it could have serious ramifications upon Wikipedia as a whole. Deleting Joe Kleon could destroy Wikipedia's reputation and integrity. Stunning! Would you perhaps care to explain here? (And just out of interest, do you have a PhD, and if so then in which field?) -- Hoary (talk) 23:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• In an age of 'piped in', 'satellite', 'remotely/previously recorded' media, I think it's refreshing to find a person who is wholly dedicated to living/recording/producing locally! As an Ohio resident, specifically Akron/Cleveland area, I like the idea of Joe Kleon being on our side! I say keep the guy 'keeping on' and let him keep the article to broaden his horizon! There are mentions of 'self-promotion' and being 'arrogent'....to those comments: get over it and quit being jealous that you don't have the idea/gumption to do it yourselves! Way to go Joe! Good luck! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.60.53.159 (talk) 19:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC) — 70.60.53.159 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • The word "arrogant" (as it is conventionally, and was, spelled) does indeed appear above. But it's not used about Kleon's paid work, or even about his creation of an article about himself; it's about his campaign of spamming for retention of the article. -- Hoary (talk) 23:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and checkuser all around. Non-notable DJ. I wonder if he knows about this page and is asking people who listen to him to !vote here. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know, if I could, I'd CSD the article, per my original nom AND all the crap that has appeared on this page from people who have made no other edits to WP except for this page, as it's pretty obvious how they ended up here. I highly suggest a checkuser and would wholeheartedly support a block if the run showed what I'm fairly certain that it will. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 00:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Switch (Ashanti song)[edit]

Switch (Ashanti song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:Music. Non-notable song DiverseMentality (Talk) (Contribs) 23:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 23:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wikipedia is not the Entertainment channel. Article looks like a fansite blog post and does not establish encyclopedic value. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't agree with the "song" section of WP:MUSIC, but this does fail it. Ford MF (talk) 02:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to American Idol (season 7). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asia'h Epperson[edit]

Asia'h Epperson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A non-notable non-top 12 American Idol contestant. It's even WP:IDOL's policy. Shapiros10 WuzHere  22:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and Merge. Into American Idol 7. Renee (talk) 23:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All of the relevant info is in a section on the American Idol 7 page. The only thing that is on the actual page and not the AI7 page is some intense POV wording. Also, I suggest we give the creator a little TLC-this article was his first edit. Shapiros10 WuzHere  23:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and Merge into American Idol (season 7). Semi-finalist on American Idol that fails WP:MUSIC. Aspects (talk) 00:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• MergeRedirect There's plenty of precedent to redirect articles on non-notable contestants (ie those failing to reach the top 3 or have other achievements) to the series/season. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is nothing to merge. All of the relevant info is already in a short bio on the AI7 page. This page is a carbon copy of that, except for some non-NPOV wording. Shapiros10 WuzHere  11:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect to American Idol season 7. As Shapiros said, all the info is there. J.delanoy^gabsanalyze 16:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to American Idol (season 7) Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect Desn't seem to have any content that separates her from the show. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. What has she done post-Idol (or pre-Idol that matter) to warrant the article? CrazyC83 (talk) 02:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notable ahoge characters[edit]

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

This does not seem to be an encyclopedic topic, it is a collection of fictional characters that have a certain hair style. This is no more an encyclopedic topic than Congressmen with blue eyes, Facial grooming habits of ordained ministers or Fictional characters that have traveled through time.

It is also a list that is no more than a collection of links containing no actual article style content. _{1 != 2} 22:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The term "notable" in the article's title is not warranted. This is a case akin to over-categorizing, as the list is not encyclopedic. Besides, the list is unsourced and may contain original research. I don't see how it could improve to become something encyclopedic. Kariteh (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. Seriously? A list of "notable" fringe anime characters based on their hair style? SERIOUSLY? coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. More non-notable than usual (if possible!). Renee (talk) 23:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I created the article and I this point I don't mind if its deleted, it started as a small list on another page and balooned when others added stuff to it to I moved it. I noticed WP had tons of such oddball lists (List of Hobbits, List of extraterrestrials in Dragon Ball, List of former Maryland state highways, List of comic book superpowers, etc) and figured another wouldn't hurt. Lando242 (talk) 23:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - A small list of examples at ahoge would suffice, I think. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability cannot be combed out of this one. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL

Nice... J.delanoy^gabsanalyze 16:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete agree with nom. The article fails to demonstrate why it is important/significant/notable for anime characters with "foolish hair". AFAICT, there are many characters with wild hair... so what? The absence of a direct and 'justified' connection between ahoge and anime makes it pretty indiscriminate, and begs deletion. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete actually, looking at "ahoge" makes it clear that this is referring to a distinct hair lock... but nevertheless it's not a notable topic. JuJube (talk) 08:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Selectively merge to ahoge; the use of this hair feature as a motif would be bolstered by examples. Question: is there a name for the Super Saiyan hair style sported by Vegeta and many others? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a textbook illustration of what WP:IINFO means you should not create. J.delanoy^gabsanalyze 16:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:NOT#INFO, WP:NOR. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 21:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above reasons Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a list for the sake of having a list. There is nothing notable about characters who have "foolish hair" nor is the list useful or given a purpose. --Farix (Talk) 15:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Farix, everyone else. Edward321 (talk) 23:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the blizzard of reasons enumerated above. Ford MF (talk) 02:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (CSD G11) by Athaenara. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chasing Canadia[edit]

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

Potentially non-notable band. Justpassin (talk) 22:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable; trying to advertise on Wikipedia.Renee (talk) 23:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Píča[edit]

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

This article uses original research and is not verifiable at all, it looks like some kind of joke created by a Czech citizen. Therefore it should be deleted. Koblizek (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It must have been a miracle that this survived a prior nomination for deletion, it is totally unverifiable. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I think this must be a hoax. I googled pica and of course got the real meaning (i.e., eating non-food substances...). Renee (talk) 23:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, in English. It may mean something else in Czech. There is an article in Czech on the subject. A²Kafir (and...?) 00:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • For what it's worth, the word seems to have been borrowed into Esperanto as piĉo as well. We urgently need an article about Esperanto profanity. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is supposed to be a Czech symbol, and the Czech Wikipedia has had an article about it at cs:Píča for two years now. That article appears to have multiple references, although the references are all in Czech so I can't look them up myself. Googling for the word is difficult because Google appears to disregard the diacritics and looks for "pica" (not just the eating disorder, but the typeface size and other meanings). I plan to request input on the Czech Wikipedians' message board to see if they can confirm whether this symbol is real. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I may have heard it before. It may be notable in Czech, but the lack of valid sources in English indicates to me that this article probably does not belong in the English-speaking WP, except perhaps as a best case merge to Czech profanities or somesuch. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I can confirm that this is real and it is an often source of vandalism in the Czech Republic (possibly on a level that you might have with phallic shapes in English-speaking nations). It is probably notable in the Czech Republic and the sources in the Czech Wikipedia article are fairly reliable so I'd be inclined to either keep the article or create one called Czech profanity and merge the content there. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 02:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech-related deletion discussions. -- The Dominator^Talk_Edits 03:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Replace I can also confirm the term. The article at cs:Píča is much better; if we want to keep this article here in the English wiki we should replace the contents with an English translation of the Czech version. I honestly don't care if it's deleted here or not. Seeing it up for AfD did give me a good chuckle. Plvekamp (talk) 03:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge. JanSuchy (talk) 07:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge and rewrite. As a citizen of the CZE I confirm it is one of the most widespread profanities but in the half of the country it is written with short i. Still, the article is really bad and deceptive. The <|> sign mentioned can be found in virtually every country where I've been, it is not some Czech speciality. According to one documentary it was used as long ago as Before Christ in caves in Brazil. - Darwinek (talk) 08:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I know Darwinek and The Dominator by their work in WikiProject Czech Republic, and I'm satisfied that this is a real thing. The article is a valuable cross-cultural reference, and the information in it should remain. It's like the different meanings of hand gestures in different countries. It would be more valuable if it were pointed to by omnibus articles such as "World sexual symbology" or something. --Milkbreath (talk) 10:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepYopie 12:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopie (talk • contribs)

• Comment I'd like to remind everybody that this is not a vote and comments such as "keep" or "keep or merge" should be given little weight unless they are expanded upon. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 14:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The fact that there is a better referenced article on the Czech language Wikipedia suggests that this is both notable and capable of improvement. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am a Czech citizen too and that's why I nominated this page for deletion in the first place. Yes - the word "píča" really exists but it's not the name for described symbol. This fact is not verifiable even in our country. The first sentence in Czech article says "píča is a vurgal term for female genital organs" while the English article is fully based on that unverifiable symbol.Koblizek (talk) 16:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment That's a good argument for correcting the article, not for deleting it. IMHO. Plvekamp (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Only if by correcting you actually mean writing completely new article. And even then it would still use original research and unverifiable information making it a good candidate for deletion.Koblizek (talk) 17:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Is the Czech article up for challenge/deletion? A²Kafir (and...?) 17:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, by correcting, I mean writing completely new article. The original Czech article at cs:Píča is not up for challenge/deletion, and is well-referenced. Having said all that, the subject is covered quite well over there, and I don't see much need for it here. Keep or delete, I don't really care. Your statement that it is "unverifiable" is contradicted by the presence of solid references in the Czech article, though. Plvekamp (talk) 17:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Could someone do a translation of the Czech article into English? A²Kafir (and...?) 18:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• It is irrelevant if this article or a similar article exists in another Wikipedia. Each language has certain standards for inclusion, some more rigorous than others. The fact that this material is totally unverifiable, remains to be unverifiable, and that no one has come forward with reliable third party publications about the subject speaks much louder than a million people begging to keep. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• It's not well-referenced - actually there is a ^{[citation needed]} tag on the second line and note that it wasn't me who put it there. Don't forget we are talking about the symbol, not just about the word. I repeat my statement that this article is unverifiable.Koblizek (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, that only means that line is uncited, and could be omitted. The rest of the article is verified by the references (granted, in Czech) quoted from the original here:

REJZEK, Jiří. Český etymologický slovník. [s.l.] : [s.n.]. ISBN 80-85927-85-3. - Czech etymological dictionary

Etymologie jednoho nepekneho slova [online]. 2006-10-13, [cit. 2008-01-19]. - Etymology of several (improper?) words

DOLEŽAL, A. (Ne)pikantní jazykověda. Praha : Grada Publishing, 1996. ISBN 80-7169-333-2. - (Impolite?) linguistics

UZEL, Radim. Etymologie vulgární nomenklatury genitálu [online]. Společnost pro plánování rodiny a sexuální výchovu, [cit. 2008-01-19]. - Etymology of vulgar nomenclature of genitalia

JK. piča [online]. Encyklopedie CoJoCo, 2000-09-05, rev. 2000-12-13, [cit. 2008-01-19]. - An online Czech encyclopedia entry

Rozbor uměleckého díla [online]. White Dog, 2006-09-29, [cit. 2008-01-19].

I'm tempted to add that the symbol could be verified by looking at a bathroom stall... I'm a little suspicious that this AfD is a veiled attempt at censorship. I'm not a native speaker, obviously, but I do understand a little Czech. Plvekamp (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Omitting that line from Czech article would mean omitting the whole English article (=deleting it) because it's based on that line. And what's your point with those references? All of them (some of them being just speculations) are ONLY about the word and its alleged origin, there's nothing about the symbol and the article I nominated for deletion is only about the symbol. None of those references is applicable here. Your sentence I'm tempted to add that the symbol could be verified by looking at a bathroom stall actually means that it can't be verified at all. This is definitely not an attempt at censorship, it's just an attempt to clean a mess someone made by publishing the article based on one unverifiable symbol.Koblizek (talk) 21:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:SOFIXIT. I already stated my belief that it would be better to clean the mess by translating the better article, and a native speaker like yourself would do that much better than I could. Or delete it. My only objection is to the statement that the entire article is unverifiable, where references exist. Plvekamp (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps a better argument would be that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Plvekamp (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with this and that's another reason why I don't want to correct the English article and at the same time I have no problem with Czech article. Koblizek (talk) 22:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Plvekamp suggestion I'm adding another reason for deletion in addition to the above - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Koblizek (talk) 22:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So far, I think that an article on Czech profanity might be best. the article kokot (slang) was recently deleted because of WP:DICDEF too. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 04:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:DICDEF only. I'm getting off the fence I was sitting on...  ;) Plvekamp (talk) 05:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: needs improving but it is interesting. Scolaire (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please review WP:INTERESTING and WP:ILIKEIT -- neither of which are valid arguments. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that references added recently by JanSuchy have little credibility and show no connection between the word píča and the symbol. Koblizek (talk) 12:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep there seems to be adequate documentation for this. Weak keep only, because I can not actually see it myself & some of the people who can read the language have expressed some doubts. DGG (talk) 01:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge and rewrite. This word with slightly different spellings is among the most widespread profanities in at least several Slavic languages, but as far as I know it refers to female sexual organs, not a symbol of rhombus. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 18:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment I made a slight rewrite to indicate that it doesn't refer solely to the symbol but also to the actual word. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 20:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep confirmed as genuine by knowledgeable, trusted editors. Perhaps difficult to source in English, but as mentioned above, an important cross-cultural article. A more comprehensive one on the broader subject of Czech profanity would probably be preferable, but I'll take an imperfect article that exists over a perfect but wholly imaginary one. Ford MF (talk) 02:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anya Kamenetz[edit]

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

Per WP:BIO, WP:AUTO and WP:COI. The page (according to the history) looks like it was created by the subject, and it also reads like an autobiography. The history shows it was crafted mostly by single-purpose accounts and/or single purpose ips. There exist at least two books called Generation Debt, which complicates google evaluating, but the subject's book has received limited attention by people other than the subject and it has a sales rank on amazon.com in excess of 500,000. Google searches for the subject's name show the subject's articles in syndication but little else other than a few blog posts. Thus no WP:RS to sustain notability. Being a staff writer and column contributor for magazines is not notable in itself under WP:BIO. Antiselfpromotion (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 23:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Her book seems to be reasonably notable. It's discussed on NPR[2], for instance. Pburka (talk) 01:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. By her ;-) in a 90 sec segment. The coverage was not about her or her book. It is more like she is giving a quick quote to the press in that interview. Antiselfpromotion (talk) 01:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, her book GENERATION DEBT: Why Now Is a Terrible Time to Be Young has been reviewed by many reliable sources, obtained via EBSCO library database.
  • Kirkus Reviews; 12/15/2005, Vol. 73 Issue 24, p1311-1311, 1/3p
  • Publishers Weekly; 12/19/2005, Vol. 252 Issue 50, p57-57, 1/5p
  • Library Journal; 1/1/2006, Vol. 131 Issue 1, p132-132, 1/6p
  • Booklist; 2/15/2006, Vol. 102 Issue 12, p24-25, 2p
  • Newsweek; 2/20/2006, Vol. 147 Issue 8, pE2-E2, 1/6p, 1c
  • Business Week; 2/6/2006 Issue 3970, p100-101, 2p, 2c
  • Mother Jones; Jan/Feb2006, Vol. 31 Issue 1, p71-77, 4p, 1c
  • Village Voice; 1/25/2006, Vol. 51 Issue 4, pc69-c69, 2/3p, 1bw
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Captain-tucker (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I am less sure about the notability of the book but agree it may be notable. Shall I change my nomination to move the personal article to an article for Generation Debt instead of the author? IE reverse the redirect? I am neutral about the notability of the book, but the vanity part of the article is not notable. One day the subject may become independently notable and a separate page can be created about her at the time. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 02:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted G11 as blatant, personal advertising. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Microchannelization[edit]

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

Neologism which is not in widespread use. 5 non-wiki ghits, none of which show notability; 0 gnews hits. Contested prod. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC) This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Angr 21:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I would also have PROD-ed this if I had seen it while patrolling newpages. No evidence of even marginally common use in the real world. J.delanoy^gabsanalyze 16:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mood Muzik: The Worst of Joe Budden[edit]

Why are we creating articles for mixtapes for crying out loud? Generally speaking, 99% of them are not notable, and this is definitely no exception. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 21:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment—It would be preferable to first apply a notability template and allow the editors an opportunity to address the issue. If no improvements are forthcoming, then it can be put up for deletion.—RJH (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's not a commercially available product and it has no sources, so the notability isn't there. Nate • (chatter) 22:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 23:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Esradekan. JuJube (talk) 08:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy5 (talk) 02:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of beaches[edit]

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

This is a bit absurd. A list of beaches? Well, a list of what it calls "notable" beaches -- but what does it consider notable? Belongs better in a cat. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 20:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment—We do have Category:Beaches by country, but what about the red links?—RJH (talk) 21:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This article should be in the same format as List of Schools.-- Coasttocoast (talk) 23:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep What, nothing in Switzerland? I don't see it as absurd, because beaches tend to be the destination of choice for vacationers worldwide, whether it's the Black Sea, Miami or Phuket. I can see potential for this article to do things that a category might not, with the addition of some context to distinguish a "beach" as a resort area that happens to be on the coast. Additional sourcing would be easy to find, since tourism lends itself to extensive promotion. Mandsford (talk) 23:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep has potential as a list; no reason not to have a list and a category. "Notable beaches " is this context means what such a phrase in a list article usually does, that the individual items have an article in Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 01:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Great potential for an excellent geographical research list. I am confident that any notable beach will have ample verfiability to meet WP guidelines.--Mike Cline (talk) 11:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Though it might never be complete, this list is very usefull for articles on tourism by specific countries, so you do not have to worry about editing a comprehensive list, when you do have this longer list as a support. Check the "Tourism in (country)" articles. Also, there are other several lists like this one in Wiki, and for me they have been a very good reference for a starting point for working articles. In summary, lists like this are very usefull for editors and users alike. Mariordo (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Underpants and the Brainy Bamboozle of Black Cheetah Man[edit]

Captain Underpants and the Brainy Bamboozle of Black Cheetah Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable source indicates the author plans to write any such book. —Saric (Talk) 20:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC) (Note that I attempted to delete this article through proposed deletion a couple of days ago, but the prod template was removed by 59.183.8.122 without an edit summary. —Saric (Talk) 20:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

• Delete per nom. Also note that the anonymous editor who removed the prod is the article's original author, Fangusu, who is currently blocked and was editing anonymously to evade the block (I will link to my sockpuppet report when I finish it). As such, I do not think the prod removal should have counted as it resulted from illicit editing, but since the AFD has already been started I don't think it's possible to simply revert the illicit edit to see if the prod remains long enough to be deleted without this whole process. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 23:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fangusu for evidence that the de-prodder was a blocked vandal. Please note that I include this only to support my claim that the prod removal was illicit; any comments about the sockpuppetry allegation should be made at the report, not here in this AfD. I don't know if it matters at this point that the de-prod was invalid as the AFD has already been started. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 23:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but please also list the title at WP:DAFT! Grutness...wha? 02:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. But that title is brilliant! Ecoleetage (talk) 02:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete probable hoax. The Captain Underpants series is real (and hilarious!), but this book isn't part of the series as far as I can tell. Plvekamp (talk) 04:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This (look at #10) suggests that this title may not have been made up out of wholly whole cloth. And indeed, it sounds too bizarre to be totally fictitious, doesn't it? But that list is clearly outdated, since the subtitle for book 8 is wrong, and the release dates have been pushed back a good deal. What I'm wondering about is whether FrankenFart vs. the Bionic Barf Bunnies from Diarrhea Land ought to be deleted. I'm pretty sure that Pilkey's suggestion that he'll really write it, a picture of the cover which appears on the last page of Captain Underpants and the Preposterous Plight of the Purple Potty People, was a joke. (The author on the cover is "Evil Dav Pilkey".) But the evidence that he'll write Captain Underpants and the Terrifying Re-Turn of Tippy Tinkletrousers is just the same— a mention on that very same page— and I'm pretty sure that's real. —Saric (Talk) 17:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Good find. I prod'd FrankenFart vs. the Bionic Barf Bunnies from Diarrhea Land. If Pilkey ever does write it, the article can be recreated. Plvekamp (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I looked around for evidence that the Tippy Tinkeltrousers one was real, and while I couldn't find much, someone had mentioned on a book selling website's forum that the title was listed as "coming soon" or something similar in the book before it. Not exactly a reliable source, but it's enough at least that I opted to keep an eye on that one instead of adding it to this AfD. If someone else opts to nominate it, it's their call. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 20:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Right, the last page of Perilous Plight says Tippy Tinkletrousers is "coming soon". FrankenFart appears under the heading "Also Coming Soon-ish", along with sequels to The Adventures of Super Diaper Baby and The Captain Underpants Cartoon-O-Rama, Book 1: Heroes, Villains, and Super Creeps, which I think are real. —Saric (Talk) 23:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There's no question asked. Everything is mentioned above and should be taken care of now since it is obvious everything is fake. -71.183.40.247 (talk) 01:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As We Were[edit]

As We Were (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

fails WP:NOTFILM, only source does not mention this film For An Angel (talk) 20:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom. Also fails Notability as no mainstream or non-mainstream sources can be found through normal routes. Rgoodermote  23:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cookham Dean F.C.[edit]

Cookham Dean F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable English football club. Previous consensus has been for clubs down to Level 10 to be notable, and those who have never reached at least that level have been frequently deleted. Cookham Dean have never got past Level 11, and appear to have no other claim to notability. fchd (talk) 19:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. No brainer! Ohconfucius (talk) 02:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I can't argue with the nominator on this as he's the expert on non-league football. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. --Jimbo^[online] 11:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Adios poor article; we knew you well, maybe not. Minkythecat (talk) 13:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 16:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St. Luke Lutheran Church[edit]

St. Luke Lutheran Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable church. Katr67 (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. —Katr67 (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article needs to be rewritten, not deleted. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not appear to have any claim of notability. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 03:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:ORG. Most individual local churches are non-notable. The church has apparently been mentioned on occasion in independent reliable sources but does not appear to have received significant coverage from them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Most individual churches aren't notable. AndyJones (talk) 12:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Individual congregations are neither inherently notable nor inherently non-notable. This particular one has no specific claijms to notability: (a) it is not particularly old, (b) it has not had a storied history, (c) it is large, but not in an extra-ordinary way, and (d) it has not been served by any particularly notable pastors. I doubt that this would be notable enough for a mention in the Portland article; there is a small mention in the neighborhood article, which seems appropriate. God is gracious -- Wikipedia demands notability. Pastordavid (talk) 13:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Speedy Close Church's are like small villages and communities, which automatically meet notability, especially if they currently exist. That guideline was found though central discussion, which quasi-substantiates a speedy close. Also, the article has only existed for one month and there isn't anything in the page that casts hurt or displays questionable content. If the article was older than a year, then AfD is could be considered then after time to expand the article, but central discussion has changed the view on the guideline to delete it now. — Dzonatas 01:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amurn -- An example of previous a discussion on AfD. speedy close — Dzonatas 01:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment See WP:HARMLESS and WP:OTHERSTUFF. Also a proposal is not a guideline, and individual churches are not settlements. Do you you have a current guideline about the notability of churches to link to that shows this "changed...view on the guideline"? I've written dozens of articles on small towns and would argue that every one is notable, but as stated above, individual churches are rarely notable unless they are historic, such as West Union Baptist Church or Salem First United Methodist Church. Note that each of these is the "first" or "oldest" in some area. On the other hand, their current congregational activities alone would not make them notable if they, say moved to a brand new building. Katr67 (talk) 01:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply I appreciate your comment and it has been most informative. What's in WP:HARMLESS appears more to be about things or stories that absolutely no reliable source (or potentially none at all) exist. I can't agree that would hold true for a place, which is obvious that someone could visit it an find that it currently exists (and that would be inheritly a reliable source). That is covered in the central discussion: wrong forum — Dzonatas 01:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, per your "there isn't anything in the page that casts hurt or displays questionable content"--i.e. "This article isn't hurting anything". Just because an article isn't hurting anything, that is to say, it is "harmless", doesn't mean it should be included in an encyclopedia, as including anything and everything sets a bad precedent. "It exists" is not a criterion for notability, and of course visiting the place=original research. Again, however,I believe we are talking about an individual church/congregation, not a "place", in other words a settlement. Unless there is a clear guideline that you can point to showing that all individual churches are notable, we have to go with the general Wikipedia-wide notability guideline, which this article clearly fails. Katr67 (talk) 01:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wikipedia:Notability_(Places_and_transportation)#Buildings_and_Structures specifically refers discussion. The article contains the minimal requirement as recognized. — Dzonatas 02:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Dzonatas. Durova^Charge! 04:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dzonatas has been blocked indefinitely for disruption. Durova^Charge! 16:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Proposed policies/guidlines carry no weight. WP:N does, and this article fails that. Aboutmovies (talk) 11:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per absence of delete preferences (non-admin closure). Editors interested in pursuing a merge are invited to discuss the matter at the article's talkpage. ɥʞoɹoɯoʞS 16:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First Harrogate Trains[edit]

First Harrogate Trains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:CRYSTAL - "proposed", "plan to run", "if the application is successful, it will start running". ukexpat (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep but hang on Keep at least for the time being. We need to search for sources. If the article is true in what it states, then a keep is required. Other articles like this (although better) rightly exist.Btline (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Strong Keep have looked in more detail. Keep because there is a professional website, clear proposals. There are also three other "pipedreams" on Wiki, which are similar to this one - all should stay. There is also a logo ready. This is more than a "crystal ball." [Unsigned position by Btline (talk)]

• Keep but it needs to be watched and built. First seem to be pretty serious as they have registered on built there own website for it. Worth a look if you're not convinced. --Fuelboy (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - valid article once the subject of the article has been released. Yes, WP:CRYSTAL does somewhat apply, but the fact of the matter is that there are other such articles that have been kept. --tennisman 20:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Other stuff exists is not a reason to keep. This article has to be judged on its own merits. – ukexpat (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with First Hull Trains. Despite the different brand name and web address, this is essentially a proposal by Hull Trains to run a new service to Harrogate. At present, that's pretty much all there is to say about it, so a subsection of the First Hull Trains article should suffice. If the proposal ever becomes a reality, then the situation can be reviewed. --RFBailey (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge RFB says it as well as I could. There's no point having articles on every UK railproposal - assorted ideas like this are floated all the time. — iridescent 21:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with First Hull Trains until at least that there are multiple independent reliable sources as per policy. At the current time I only see the company's own website and the ORR application. Adambro (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Changed to Keep as meets the notability requirements defined in WP:NOTE following Simply south highlighting some additional sources of which the article from the The Press is really what swings it for me. Adambro (talk) 13:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A merge could be done but what about similar articles to this one like Grand Union? Year1989 (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Union Railway has the multiple independent reliable sources required by policy based on a quick look. Adambro (talk) 05:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. Despite the name, a quick glance at the web site makes it clear that this is a Hull Trains proposal rather than a new venture. (And yes, I would do the same for Grand Union and any other proposals that are coming from an existing train operating company.) David Arthur (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, per arguments above. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep it reflects documented and referenced future plans. It should not be merged as the association with Hull Trains is purely a legal arrangement, both of these companies are part of FirstGroup, a massive company. And Hull is miles from Harrogate. MickMacNee (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but in one of the communications between Hull Trains and the ORR that I read about this, there was a suggestion that trains from Hull and Harrogate could be joined (at Selby) to share a path on the ECML to London. Hull Trains are definitely the brains behind this proposal. --RFBailey (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and expand - Rename to Future Harrogate open access railway or similar, as a holding article for the route and rolling stock info, and as a linking target from elsewhere. From the sources added below, it appears there is a confirmed plan for a new open access operation, which is definitely going to happen, and has been covered in WP:RS, and so is not looking too far into the future (we have articles on planes to be builit in 2020 iirc). So far FirstGroup, National Express and Grand Union Railway have expressed an interest in running it. Splitting the info across three TOC articles while we wait to see who wins it, is just unneccessary and wastefull duplication, which frankly happens too often already in wiki railway articles. MickMacNee (talk) 17:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that rename sensible? At present, neither NatEx nor Grand Central/Union/Northern (or whoever they are) have made applications to run trains to Harrogate. Also, it's not "definitely" going to happen: the ORR has to grant permission for it, which is by no means guaranteed (especially given that they're asking for extra paths on the ECML). --RFBailey (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep no merge- only merge if it becomes definite that it will be run as a joint TOC. Remember - it has its own website and logo and NAME (!) currently. No merge. Otherwise we would have to merge Humber coast and City railway with Hull Trains (and Glasgow Trains) Don't go there, it will end up with a huge and difficult Hull Trains article!

I would also like to say that WP allows "Prospective TOCs! Btline (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article fails the notability guidelines defining the base requirement for any article in that it fails the following: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." Therefore it doesn't merit an article at the current time and so should be merged into Hull Trains which is appropriate since this is clearly a Hull Trains side project at the moment rather than anything completely distinct. Adambro (talk) 16:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of independant sources, from just one google search term: [3], [4]. MickMacNee (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of these sources seem to do anything to establish the notability of "First Harrogate Trains", the subject of this article, but rather these proposals as a project of Hull Trains and as such I remain unconvinced that it is appropriate for this to be a distinct article and maintain it should be merged into the Hull Trains article. Adambro (talk) 21:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my vote resoning, the sources establish the notability of a planned new open access operator to harrogate. Spreading that info accross three TOC articles, plus probably harrogate and other rail articles, is a completely wasteful duplication of information. MickMacNee (talk) 23:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the argument "WP Other crap exists" cannot be applied to this AFD. This is because those other articles are valid, are notable and have been kept (and so is this as it is the same). If anything, this one is less "WP Crystal Ball" than the others! Btline (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. The Grand Central/Union/Northern proposals could all be listed as subsections of the existing Grand Central article, while details about Renaissance Trains' other ideas (e.g. Grimsby, Glasgow, etc.) could easily be included in the existing Renaissance Trains article. --RFBailey (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the connexion between Harrogate Trains and Hull Trains is not just that they're both part of First. If you go to the Harrogate Trains and click 'About Us', the 'us' that is documented is Hull Trains, not First. David Arthur (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It really is an irrelevant connection, purely a legal arrangement. If you already have a TOC entity set up, you don't create a separate legal entity just to make a bid that might fail meaning you then wind up that entity. I really can't see how people don't understand this. For all intents and purposes, the bidder is FirstGroup, barring the operational proposal (relying on which really does violate not speculating on the future), to split/merge actual train services, it realy is an irrelevcance. MickMacNee (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course it's relevant. If you read the ORR material, it is clearly Hull Trains that are responsible for this. If the proposal is successful, they may well create a new company, or they may not--that's not for us to guess now. Besides, Hull Trains is not a wholly-owned subsidiary of FirstGroup. --RFBailey (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - why are we going to do things differently with this one article only? Let's just keep it simple and keep. If circumstances change, then deletion or merging can be considered. This is exacltly the same as other pages. Btline (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - it is not necessarily a Hull Trains invention. It is due to the fact of the success of Hull Trains (as are 3 other FTOCs - shall be delete/merge all of these?). If it had been a direct connexion, it would not have a separate section of website. Btline (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • • (Why have you made TWO !votes on this page?) Your comment about the three other First TOCs is irrelevant; they are quite definitely separate legal entities, each holding a distinct franchise, and each currently operates trains. If you have read the ORR application, you will have noticed that Hull Trains are behind this--the separate URL is just a branding exercise. --RFBailey (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An AFD is not a vote. It is the arguments and what is said that counts. Therefore there was no harm in me heading up each of my comments with my decision- especially as it changed a little. I have changed the above to "comment" etc. and struck through my original vote (which latterly changed) to please people. But to strike through whole comments/ arguments was not justifed, is a form of sabotage and I was not pleased when I saw it. I was certainly not doing any harm deliberately. I will, however, not take this further this time. Btline (talk) 16:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need a lesson from you on how AfD works, thank you all the same. I know it's not a strict counting of votes. Nevertheless, it's considered bad form to offer your "keep"/"merge"/"delete" opinion more than once in a discussion. --RFBailey (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to take further here, striking multiple votes is standard Afd procedure, it's not like they were deleted completey. MickMacNee (talk) 16:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No! You struck the whole comment! Btline (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. If you find any admin that will say otherwise I will redact. MickMacNee (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whether or not Hull Trains are behind it, we shall have to wait for how the service is branded. If it turns out that it will be shared with Hull Trains, then merge when the time comes. However, until this is decided it should be kept - as you said it is branded differently at the moment. WP does not predict what will happen in the future. So it is still keep for me. Btline (talk) 16:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have no real opinion either way, but I thought I'd mention that I've done a little search and found that First Harrogate Trains Ltd was incorporated (i.e. registered with Companies House) on 14 May 2008. While it may well be a Hull Trains idea, it appears to be a seperate entity [5] Hammersfan 06/06/08, 23.01 BST

• Exactly, it is a separate company. It does not matter who dreamt it up! So until it is clear it will be merged/run under Hull Trains, it should remain on its own page! WP does not assume/guess what might happen. Btline (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not assuming anything. Read the application to the ORR [6], and you will see that it was Hull Trains Ltd. that made the application to operate the Harrogate services. --RFBailey (talk) 23:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that may be true, but at the moment they are marketing/branding it as a separate TOC. Therefore, WP observes what they are doing and keeps this page intact. I have to say, I very much doubt Network Rail will permit the Hull/Harrogate services to be split along the route, as they did not let another TOC do that (I think GC). Btline (talk) 09:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Until such time as there are multiple independent reliable sources about the subject of this article "First Harrogate Trains" then this fails the requirements of WP:NOTE and therefore any other discussion are irrelevant. Adambro (talk) 18:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prospective rail operations are notable, whether they are First or whoever. This information needs a neutral article, deleting it serves no purpose, bar creating unnecessary duplication across 3 train articles, and other geo-articles. It is fully notable that a Harrogate service is planned. MickMacNee (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So the fact that it has a website and a brand set up, AND the ORR application is not enough? They are the most reliable sources possible. Btline (talk) 18:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No-one is disputing the reliability of those sources as stating the facts of the situation. What Adambro is suggesting is needed are sources that demonstrate the notability of this proposal: not simply that the proposal exists, but that people actually care about it. In response to MickMacNee, I'm not convinced that all prospective rail operators are automatically notable. Some of the suggestions put forward are laughable (although I'm not including this one in that category). And I don't see how a merge (no-one apart from the nominator has voted delete) would cause information to be duplicated across separate articles. --RFBailey (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, there are three planned bidders. It makes perfect sense to 'park' the information about the planned service in a separate article until an operator is announced, in which time it can be merged into a new oprator article as a 'history' section. The fact is, there exists right now notable information about the reasons bahind this planned service, and details about the route and stock, completely independant of who might be bidding for it, or will actually get it. Far too many developments in the rail industry are documented as insignificant and poorly maintained sub-sections of existing article, often deleted when they do/don't come to fruition. It's about time wikipedia acknowledged that the railway comprises more than just company focussed articles. This is a notable planned service. MickMacNee (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are incorrect on a number of points. Firstly, this service isn't being offered for companies to bid for. Three, or however many it is, companies each have developed their own different proposals to operate Harrogate - London services. I am not sure that there is any one company that will be granted permission to run their proposed services, I see nothing to prevent each from being granted permission although of course the service timings may be incompatible for this and need amending. This isn't a franchise that will be awarded. I don't know in what order the ORR applications were made but presumably one company put their application in first and then the other suddenly decided they'd like to run Harrogate - London services as well. Again, this isn't a proposed service in itself, each company is making completely distinct proposals which are only related by intention to run services between Harrogate and London. Adambro (talk) 19:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who are the other two companies with Harrogate-London proposals? On the ORR website, I can only find this one. --RFBailey (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep seems notable enough. Although if a merge goes ahead, might as well also merge Humber Coast & City Railway into Hull Trains. Simply south (talk) 10:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Why is it notable enough? Are there multiple independent reliable sources as required by WP:NOTE? Whilst there seems to be a good number of sources referring to a Hull Trains proposals for these services there is little that refers directly to the subject of this article, "First Harrogate Trains", which supports the suggestion that this should at the current time be considered a side project of Hull Trains rather than anything more distinct. I think we should consider Humber Coast & City Railway separately as the situation might be different. Adambro (talk) 11:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ignoring the application and that, i have found these things

1. here directy referring to it,
2. here showing it is part of a Hull Trains proposal
3. Company listing

Simply south (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding these. As above I've changed my position to "Keep" on the basis of the notability in accordance with WP:NOTE being established. I did have a look myself for more sources but wasn't successful. It is the article from The Press (thisisyork.co.uk) that really swing it for me, which interestingly appears to have been published today. The company listing doesn't have much weight in my opinion, I'm not able to look at the Railway Herald article at the moment. I would still maintain that some of the previous reasons given for keeping this are a bit questionable though such as that they have a website. Adambro (talk) 13:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is more notable than other prospective TOCs. Because this one is likely to happen. And because it has its own brand and website already!

As for HC and C, it is unlikely to happen as NXEC and EMT are going to run the services soon anyway. So it seems like the AFD is on the wrong article. Btline (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For you to have a solid argument at AfD you need to base your position on our policies and guidelines, not your opinions as to the likelihood of proposals going ahead. You need to consider this when discussing articles. Having a website has no influence on the degree of notability of a subject with reference to our notability guidelines. The points you have made suggest you don't understand Wikipedia policy and so continuing to make assertions as to why this article is notable for various reasons is only likely to annoy other users who understand the irrelevance of some of your comments and ultimately therefore weaken your position. Your comments have done nothing to convince me of the notability of this subject, Simply south's comments which address the notability guidelines made all the difference in changing my opinion. Adambro (talk) 19:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps you are right. But it is sometimes necessary to look beyond rules and guidelines and apply initiative. I would also say that a prospective rail company from First Group and Ren Trains, who have applied for an application are definitely notable enough for a wiki page - just like many others which are. But that is just me applying common sense... if more proof is needed - so be it. Btline (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, not everyone agrees with your notion of what "common sense" is. --RFBailey (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a tough one, but after checking some of the sources linked above (as well as a quick google search) it seems that the proposal is rather relevant from a business perspective; the article could certainly use some work and especially more references, but I don't think it meets any of the deletion criteria. CrazyChemGuy (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to First Hull Trains for now. If the proposal fails then this will be in the right place; if it succeeds then we can break it out again. Smile a While (talk) 02:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the main article, no clear consensus on the other articles. As two of the keep !voters said, this person does appear to have belonged to an otherwise notable band, which is a notability criterion per WP:MUSIC, and there was no real case made by the delete !voters as to why that guideline should be ignored here. While there seemed to be some support for deletion of some individual articles co-nominated with this one, that discussion wasn't thorough enough that I'd feel comfortable deleting any of them; I think it's fair to say that there's no prejudice against re-listing any of them individually. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tweedy Bird Loc[edit]

Tweedy Bird Loc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to be a non-notable musician per WP:MUSIC. Also listing the following related articles:

187 Ride By (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No Holds Barred (Tweedy Bird Loc album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fuck The South Bronx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Stop Deleting My Stuff! —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Tommy (talk • contribs) 19:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I can't actually do the deletion, I'm not an admin. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: passes several points in WP:MUSIC. Was a member, creator and producer of the group Bloods & Crips whose albums charted and were certified gold. Also was signed to a major label (Dangerous Records). Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 20:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do think that the article Fuck The South Bronx should be deleted, it's a very short article that can't go any further than an infobox and track listing. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 20:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just being a member of the Bloods & Crips doesn't make him notable; he has no notability outside the Bloods & Crips (at least none per WP:MUSIC). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was my understanding that being member of a notable music group, makes him notable as a solo artist. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 21:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No evidence of notability, no suggestion that this artist has received non-trivial coverage by third party publications. Fails WP:MUSIC as well as the general biographical guidelines. End of story. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 21:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, all of them fail to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 23:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all because they fail to establish notability under WP:MUSIC and so forth. JBsupreme (talk) 08:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep he produced several charting albums and at least one of the albums he produced was certified Gold. Live and Die 4 Hip Hop (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is unclear exactly what his actual involvement with the Bloods & Crips album was, nor does what I can glean from the limited sources available about the album really qualify him under WP:MUSIC criteria. As mentioned previously, there aren't any sources available which document this person in a non-trivial way, which is the major underlying problem here. JBsupreme (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Stop trying To delete My Work! Its All Good! —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Tommy (talk • contribs) 18:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all' As they fail WP:MUSIC. Perhaps a more experienced user can counsel User:The Tommy some on notability criteria and article creation so that he may contribute constructively in future (he seems very keen). Perhaps he can even create new articles for the subjects in the future which follow the guidelines and policies. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - What is this world coming to? He's notable. Well he has created at least two albums per WP:MUSIC and he has also charted with some albums with Nationwide Rip Ridaz. I clearly understand why TPH has not received adminship after 5 tries. I'll make sure to watch his page more carefully so I oppose any more tries. --Flesh-n-Bone ^{(talk·contributions)} 12:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not personal, so please do not make a personal attack against TPH for challenging the notability of these articles. Creating two albums is not a criteria in WP:MUSIC, there are thousands of non-notable artists who have released much more than two albums. Furthermore notability is not inherited, so just because he played some unclear role with another album does not make this individual notable either. In this case, notability is defined by what non-trivial coverage the person received by third party sources. The answer is none. JBsupreme (talk) 14:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't attack anyone. I just wanted to clear my opinion and show what I think. And yeah he is notable, just because he is not a world-famous Indie artist doesn't make him another unknown no-name guy. 99% of the delete voters have no idea of hip hop music. I can assume you that, and next time don't quote me because it's the last time I respond to anyone's comment.--Flesh-n-Bone ^{(talk·contributions)} 14:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have seen several recent references in Hip Hop Connection magazine which i can dig up (i believe they described him as something like "the coldest rapper of all time" which, even if you don't know rap much, you have to admit is a hell of a claim); here's his own Allmusic and also Bloods & Crips', the latter of which confirms he was actually one of onely two people behind the whole thing. Also. per Tasc0 above: yep, being member of a notable group does confer notability, as does the major label presence. tomasz. 16:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I ask what "major label presence" you are referring to? "Par Records" is hardly a major label. If you can dig up some non-trivial references in Hip Hop Connection or another magazine I would be willing to reconsider, but as of right now the article still has the same problems it had when it was first nominated for deletion. JBsupreme (talk) 03:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I just went through all of the delete voters and realized they are all rock-n-roll fans. It's just annoying how when they have no idea about the music still come and vote. What? I hope it's no competition. And don't respond please. --Flesh-n-Bone ^{(talk·contributions)} 19:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. He is a member of a notable group and produced a gold record. That makes him notable, in my opinion. By the way, I am a huge rock fan. Radioinfoguy (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy5 (talk) 02:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johto[edit]

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

It's largely gamecruft, and as per WP:NOT, it doesn't belong here. --Fivexthethird (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well-written article on a subject of an extensively covered TV/game series. The article could use more sourcing, but, certainly, the sourcing is out there to be had. WP:NOT says nothing about using AfD as a forum for WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Dekkappai (talk) 21:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Dekkappai (talk) 21:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I do not understand what part of WP:NOT you are referring to. Looking through the article, I don't see much gamecruft in it, and I recently did a major copyedit and trim of it, removing most of the trivial details [7]. Artichoker^talk 21:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Seems to be a violation of WP:POINT --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the above comments, and per this post I'm thinking this nomination (and the other two) are bad-faith WP:POINT noms Abwayax (c :: t) 01:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I understand the point Fivexthethird had as at the time of this article's nomination it had no references. Since then I have added over 20 references from literature, and therefore establishing notability. Even if other Pokemon Region articles should be met with deletion because of the references this article has, it should be kept.([[User talk:Kurowoofwoof111|talk]]) (talk) 01:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There all about a game gide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fivexthethird (talk • contribs) 04:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what the problem is with the information being referenced by a game guide is. The game guides I referenced are the Official Walkthroughs released by Nintendo, and they accurately reference the information.([[User talk:Kurowoofwoof111|talk]]) (talk) 05:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Verifiable (referenced), and I have a hard time dismissing it as gamecruft, given the number of times "in the anime" or "in the manga" appears in the text. —C.Fred (talk) 04:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Didn't individual pokemon have the exact same problem? Which is why there are now, what, four articles on individual pokemon now? Manga and anime are still "in-universe". Nifboy (talk) 15:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While individual Pokemon articles obviously do not establish notability, the fact that all of our facts are referenced separates region articles from individual Pokemon articles. And being in-universe' does not constitute deletion.([[User talk:Kurowoofwoof111|talk]]) (talk) 17:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An exclusively in-universe perspective is the polar opposite of how we write articles on fiction. Nifboy (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, being written in an in universe style does not constitute deletion, only a tag at the top of the page.([[User talk:Kurowoofwoof111|talk]]) (talk) 00:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment it appears to me that the nominations of these Pokemon Region article are in retaliation for the deletion of the former Pokemon Region article, Glitch City. This post verifies that they are bad faith nominations and as stated above, a violation of WP:POINT, the nomination for this article should be settled quickly.([[User talk:Kurowoofwoof111|talk]]) (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No assertion of notability through reliable sources, stuff added is in game strategy guide references which means nothing. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• ResponseThe sources are completely reliable, these are the official strategy guides released by Nintendo making them the official source on this information. These strategy guides are officially released by Nintendo the makers of the game, they are the best possible source for this information Also I don't see what the problem is with referencing strategy guides is, the strategy guides contain the information that I'm referencing, which is all you really have to do when referencing.([[User talk:Kurowoofwoof111|talk]]) (talk) 00:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Wikipedia is not a travel guide, real-world or virtual. Neither should articles related to games dwell too much on in-game aspects per WP:VGSCOPE #7. The references are mostly used to verify in-game aspects instead of real-world development or impact. The official guides are endorsed by Nintendo, hence they are either primary or secondary sources. Without reliable third-party sources (or even secondary sources) for real-world information, this article fails WP:BURDEN. Jappalang (talk) 13:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not written as a strategy guide at all, it serves as an information source for notable places in this region. And as for third party sources, I don't see why a game guide published by Prima isn't a third party source.([[User talk:Kurowoofwoof111|talk]]) (talk) 01:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of my reasons deal with it being a strategy guide. It is a travel guide and deals only with in-game information. Prima's guide being titled as "official" and endorsed by Nintendo would mean it is a secondary source at the most (you stated "these are the official strategy guides released by Nintendo making them the official source on this information", did you not?) Jappalang (talk) 08:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment An Amazon search gives 3,527 results for books on Pokemon. A very high percentage of these no doubt cover Johto. While I doubt they are all useful, this is clear evidence that the article can be sourced. I encourage the editors of the article to look into these sources and so source the article. I will be honest enough to admit that Pokemon does not interest me, so I won't be editing the article. I am also open-minded enough to tolerate the existence of articles on subjects I don't like. Dekkappai (talk) 03:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  It does not matter if you get 3,527 books to verify that Ash arrives first in New Bark Town, that players battle their rivals for the first time in Cherrygrove, that two towers were built opposite each other to foster friendship among Pokemons, etc. None of those are real-world relevant information. If the article had 50-50 real-world/in-game sourced information, it could be made into a good article blending two elements. This article, however, is 100% in-game information. Jappalang (talk) 08:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Look, I'm an old guy with absolutely no interest in Pokemon. But even I know that Pokemon is a franchise, not just a game. It consists of multiple TV series, book series, card games, and God knows what else. I have a very hard time believing that this AfD or any Delete Vote-- excuse me !Vote-- is in good faith. Dekkappai (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  True, it is a known franchise, but what Wikipedia needs to substantiate articles on fictional work is real-world information (development, reception, etc). If there is such information on just Johto (why and how the designers come up with Johto, the process of developing Johto, the reception to Johto) and the contributors edit them in, the article would become the kind of article Wikipedia is for, and I would never have put in a Delete vote. Assuming my "Delete is in bad faith" is a bad assumption on your part and in bad faith itself. Jappalang (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep as per Kanto and Hoenn nominations. "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point". --.:Alex:. 11:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  On my part, I fail to see what WP:POINT has to do with this. The user might be disruptive, but the AFD is not. The article is failing the policies and guidelines for Wikipedia articles. It is certainly not a disruptive AFD (such an AFD would be raising up trivial or nonsensical reasons to bring to AFD articles that are fully or mostly compliant). The user should be reprimanded for his disruptive intent, but the AFD is not disruptive to ensuring Wikipeida has articles complying with its policies and guidelines. Jappalang (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• ResponseThis article meets guidelines set by Wikipedia, not only does it have many reliable and third party references (Prima), it has more of these references than many non-challenged articles. And I agree with you, on WP:Point

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

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

The result was speedy keep Sceptre ^(talk) 18:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hoenn[edit]

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

It's basicly a walkthrough! As per the Walkthrough and FAQ rule in WP:NOT I nominate thee as an Artcle for Deletion. --Fivexthethird (talk) 19:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my reasons at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johto. Dekkappai (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Dekkappai (talk) 21:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my reasons at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johto, [8]. I also did a major copyedit and trim for this article, [9]. Artichoker^talk 21:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Seems to be a violation of WP:POINT --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the above comments, and per this post I'm thinking this nomination (and the other two) are bad-faith WP:POINT noms Abwayax (c :: t) 01:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but reference. Based on the other two similar articles nominated, cleanup can be done here also to bring it up to standards. —C.Fred (talk) 04:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep Sceptre ^(talk) 18:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kanto (Pokémon)[edit]

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

Look at THe AfD articles about Hoenn and Johto! Same reason. --Fivexthethird (talk) 19:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my reasons at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johto. Dekkappai (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Dekkappai (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my reasons at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johto, [10]. I also did a major copyedit and trim for this article. Artichoker^talk 21:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Seems to be a violation of WP:POINT --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the above comments, and per this post I'm thinking this nomination (and the other two) are bad-faith WP:POINT noms Abwayax (c :: t) 01:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this article has been referenced by literature establishing notability. It has been referenced in the same way I referenced Johto and Sinnoh.([[User talk:Kurowoofwoof111|talk]]) (talk) 01:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Again, a referenced article on a reasonably notable subject. —C.Fred (talk) 04:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 19:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Axler[edit]

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

Per WP:BIO and WP:COI. The page was created by the subject's husband, as someone pointed out and the husband confirmed on the talk page. This is his only contribution. Previously (({prod))}ed by User:Calton, husband removed (({prod))}. No doubt the subject is a talented writer, but the sole claimed reference to notability is in being part of a 17-member writing team that won an emmy award. This AfD is not meant to disparage the subject but WP:BIO has not been met and the page most probably wouldn't be present in the first place without WP:COI. Antiselfpromotion (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 23:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is a pretty solid profile piece at [11] as an additional source. I would think being the only female on the writing staff at TDS would also meet WP:NOT, but I would feel better with more sources. Jim Miller (talk) 22:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Good find, but that is a college newspaper article from the school that she apparently went to. Speaking at your college and having the visit covered by the student newspaper in my opinion do not meet WP:BIO. I agree that being the only female writer at TDS could possibly be notable, but that fact is not true, according to the IMDB credits [12]. The only sourced claim is that she was the only female writer when a particular emmy was awarded, but IMDB says TDS has had other female writers, even earlier than she. I do not think having a job on the large writing staff of TDS is enough for WP:NOT alone. I find the COI significant here also. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 22:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Subject falls behind line of notability IMO: Emmy and other noms were for the entire writing staff, not her alone; she was part of a 17-person team and it's not as if she has any individual credits such as in a serial or sitcom. Having said that, I don't see COI coming into this because AfD's not for cleanup - how hard would it be to do a little rewrite? —97198 talk 13:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anal torture[edit]

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

Article has no citations, barely more than a dictionary defintion, and tells us very little, no prospect of expansion using reliable sources, it seems. All content in the current article is just a loose collection of things that don't have much to do with one another. Only Yesterday's Tomorrow (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep The article is a mess and needs a substantial re-write (probably stripping down to a stub), but as a subject within the BDSM field it's valid. Ged UK (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• What a pain in the ass, delete Completely unsourced, with a few references to a rumor about an English king, the name of a porno film, and someone's description of how hot pokers, painful objects, and hot and cold items placed..uh, there... would HURT. Unsourced, let's hope it's not "original research". Mandsford (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's just hope someone doesn't get butthurt over the deletion of this article. (I had to do it...) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It pains me that I have to even point this out, but EVERYTHING2.COM is not a valid source for an encyclopedia. (!!) coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 21:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - pretty much unsourced. I wouldn't necessarily vote to delete a GOOD article on this subject, but this is not it and doesn't look like it'd become one. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unsourced and unreferenced information. Artene50 (talk) 07:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete stick this where the sun don't shine. JuJube (talk) 08:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unsourced and unreferenced. --Npnunda (talk) 01:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete This article seems confused between the group of sexual practices and the execution method--very well documented, unfortunately, though the evidence for K. Edward, the one example here, is I think considered weak. . I dont think there's enough here that's authentic for an article. i usually support articles in this area, in acknowledgment of the difficulty in conventional sourcing , but this is not adequate.DGG (talk) 01:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a poorly formed, uncited article.-- danntm ^T _C 01:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I would've said "wipe it," but that would've made me look like a wise ass. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. Author argued on article talk page: "Come on, we don't get the big gigs - can we at least have a Wikipedia page to get some exposure?" Q.E.D. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Kick Ass Tater Paps[edit]

The Kick Ass Tater Paps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Band has no stated discography, is a local band, writer of article apparently is a member of the band, see WP:CONFLICT. FusionMix 19:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• A7 "#1 local radio hit" does not translate to charted hit. No notability whatsoever. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indus Center for Academic Excellence[edit]

Indus Center for Academic Excellence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

RS coverage doesn't establish notability and ghits are trivial. Despite WP:SCHOOLS saying high schools are notable, this isn't a school as much as a private extracurricular program. Disregard the article's current state, that could be fixed if there were materials from which to do so, it doesn't appear that there are. It also fails WP:ORG: Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found._{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 18:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: appears to fail WP:ORG and WP:V. CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to Lathrup Village, Michigan. There are enough mentions in the Detroit News and elsewhere to verify its existence but there are insufficient sources to develop a standalone article. A short mention in the locality article, as we do for all sorts of institutions that don't justify their own page, is the way to go. I would add that the target article is badly in need of some content on its facilities. TerriersFan (talk) 21:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - view changed due to the accumulation of evidence of its notability in mathematics teaching. TerriersFan (talk) 19:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per a gsearch on "Indus Center for Academic Excellence"[13] -- the search given above was just of gnews alone-- there are multiple significant awards to students here. (e.g. [14]) The link to its site, not given in the incompetent article, is [15]. DGG (talk) 01:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a student being one of 7 winners of the 2007 Sun Life Financial Canadian Open Mathematics Challenge doesn't seem to confer notability on the academic center. I'm not even entirely sure how significant that award is, but I haven't dug too deeply on that. I won a New York State award after going through a program at Nyack Library, that doesn't confer notability upon the library. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 02:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - this is an eternal debate on here. However, I think that it is entirely reasonable that when a student who has been educated in a subject at a school, then wins an award for distinction in that subject, that it should reflect well on the school. TerriersFan (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment reflect well on the school, absolutely. Let them put in their brochures that little mAry sue won an award after taking classes there and 'your kid can too'; but make the organization notable? I don't think so. Unless you're in the area you're not sending your kid there and it falls well under the scope of local organizations. That said, I don't disagree with your merge idea. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 00:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - the purpose of any school is to educate it students and evidence of notable success by the students is a reasonable metric for notability of the school. TerriersFan (talk) 19:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – appears to be notable. This source establishes the school's mathematical pedigree (a student coming in the top ten of the 40th Canadian Mathematical Olympiad is quite notable) The real notability according to our standards (significant reliable coverage independent of the subject) is established by this article in The Detroit News. Regards, EJF (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a1, in that it adds nothing to the existing article on Isaac Newton. Title misspelled and confusing to boot. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issac newton (complex)[edit]

Issac newton (complex) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod and possible copyvio. I can't quite see a reason to speedy it as I can't prove the copyvio (author's death date not known), so bringing it here for a WP:SNOW decision. — iridescent 18:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No indication that it is anything but original research. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 18:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Clearly states ...taken from A Short Account of the History of Mathematics by W. W. Rouse Ball (4th Edition, 1908) W. W. Rouse Ball died in 1925, so this is poss not copyvio but looks just like a copy/paste or a re-wording of the account! Poss WP:OR? »xytram« talk 19:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as content fork of Isaac Newton. AnturiaethwrTalk 19:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Earnshaw[edit]

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

Not a notable subject: a non-appearing character (a mythical god) that 'appeared' in only one episode of the show. Ged UK (talk) 18:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable one-shot fictional character, no out-of-universe info exists. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable. The mention in List of Last of the Summer Wine episodes is quite sufficient. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A one-off character with no lasting impact, it seems. Just plot-retelling. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, agree with the above. Non-notable and any necessary mention can be made in the episode lists. Redfarmer (talk) 18:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel S. Griffin[edit]

Daniel S. Griffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability not (or barely) claimed. Are all soap-opera writers notable? Damiens.rf 18:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete for lack of sources. Had he actually won an Emmy he'd most certainly be notable, but given that he hasn't, I say probably not. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Nomination for three pretty major awards, all on one show shows some degree of notability to me. It's still only a stub though Ged UK (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Whole writing staffs are nominated and win emmy awards together. At [16] it shows a staff of 17 writers on the OLTL staff being nominated for the emmy this page lists as the subject's. I do not think a nomination like that is not notable for an individual. The television programme is notable, in contrast. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 03:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lack of sources and no real (award-winning) claim to notablility. And after all, they are just Daytime Emmys ;) —97198 talk 13:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arkyan 22:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Around the Bend (album)[edit]

Around the Bend (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources for the album yet. Release date is still a couple months away, and there's nothing substantial about this album. Only source for the track listing is Amazon, which I don't believe qualifies under WP:RS. I'm not even finding anything that says Kyle Lehning will produce it. (Will someone please make a page on Kyle Lehning already?) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to the creators userpage until the album actually hits the shops.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 01:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Can be recreated when the album is released and establishes notability. ~ Ameliorate _{U T} @ 12:16, 30 May 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)} 17:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete until reliable sources are found and album is released -- which, as it stands, I wouldn't be surprised if it gets pushed back as "Faith in You" failed to chart. Spell4yr (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It's on Curb, so I wouldn't doubt that one bit. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Non-admin closure. --Jamie^☆S93 23:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kinnucan's[edit]

Kinnucan's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This was listed as db-inc. This article has been around long enough with enough people working on it that I'm not sure that a speedy deletion would be appropriate. However, there is no claim of notability beyond total annual sales figures, and the article is pretty thin. Previous attempts at finding additional material were unsuccessful; see talk page discussion. On the other hand, there are at least some reliable sources, and it seems a reasonable stub. Blatant advertising and copyright violations were removed months ago. This is basically a procedural nomination.Aleta ^Sing 16:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. —Aleta ^Sing 16:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Aleta ^Sing 16:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As stated on the talk page, I had a hard time finding outside sources for this article, but Nelson: Kinnucan's store keeps evolving is a fairly in depth article; discusses history, owner, store, etc. I think it could be turned into a fairly decent stub with a little work. - auburnpilot talk 16:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per this source, which is very in-depth. Find more like it and I'd go for a solid keep. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Try these sources for your solid keep, TenPound: [17] Ecoleetage (talk) 18:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Most of those are about a golf tournament. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as sufficient reliable sources are available to cross the notability and verifiability thresholds. - Dravecky (talk) 00:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - no delete votes (safe for nom) in this discussion, consensus is to keep. --JForget 23:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philip J. Kaplan[edit]

Philip J. Kaplan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Proposed delete, or merge to Fucked Company. I can not find any separate claim to WP:BIO standards in the history or on google. The page is vandalized often and the history looks like a battle between the subject and some people who used the Fucked Company message boards who do not like him. As the manager of products at a small internet-ad company subject is not notable per WP:BIO. Notoriety on a single small message board does not meet WP:BIO ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 16:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge as nom. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 23:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect into Fucked Company, although I'm not confident of the company's notability either.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, I am not either, but Fucked Company looks like it received some minor coverage in its day. I thought about adding a tag to that page but I am not confident one way or the other about the company's notability. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The subject meets WP:BIO being notable not just for the creation of Fucked Company, but also the subsequent book which was published, F'd Companies, and the later creation of AdBrite. If this person were notable for just one event I might be able to support a merge, but that wouldn't make sense at all in this situation. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It is a good point that those too have to be considered, but after reviewing WP:BIO and WP:NOT carefully, I do not think the subject's book or his involvement in founding a small ad company is notable. The AdBrite page can say it was founded by the subject, and the F'd company page can say that too. Neither association makes the subject himself notable per WP:BIO in my understanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antiselfpromotion (talk • contribs) 23:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Redirect to Fucked Company, which received some pretty significant press in its day. I don't think there's enough for an article on the man himself. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is ample notability about the subject as demonstrated above. He was also featured in the documentary film called BBS Documentary. [18] I'm not sure why the nominator is attempting to trivialize the achievements of this individual but I find it borderline inappropriate. RFerreira (talk) 16:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Please assume good faith. That documentary interviewed 75 mostly non-notable people and was already a link on the subject's page. I am not attempting to trivialize anyone's achievements. Notability is not about achievement. I nominated for AfD because the subject is not notable per our guidelines. I have nothing against the subject and am in favor of a merge. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Your user name is "Antiselfpromotion", I'm not sure how much good faith you're expecting here. Furthermore, to call AdBrite a "small ad company" when it is the sixth largest ad server in the world is most certainly trivializing, and inappropriately so. RFerreira (talk) 17:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per coccyx bloccyx. bbx (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per coccyx bloccyx, I believe this meets WP:BIO guidelines. (jarbarf) (talk) 23:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"'Keep - Anyone who has 116 mentions in legitimate news outlets is notable. End of discussion. And that's just the ones that use the middle initial, which is probably 20% of his total press mentions. Source: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22philip+j.+kaplan%22&btnG=Search+Archives&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&um=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.195.109 (talk) 03:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment most of these links are not even about this Philip J. Kaplan, but another one. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I think he's sufficiently notable. Also, frequent vandalism is not a justification for deletion. DWaterson (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. I'm assuming good faith on the nom's part, but there's no question that universities are inherently notable. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shandong Agricultural University[edit]

Shandong Agricultural University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Firstly, this page is extremly short. This school isn't that notable, I think! Maybe it should just be moved to the chinese Wikipedia. It has no refs either. StewieGriffin! • Talk 15:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Objection - You don't know much about China and you don't have the right to say that this university is too unimportant to be known. Because everything has its value. The article is short but it needs time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caiguanhao (talk • contribs) 15:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It exists, and universities are notable. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a prominent and highly notable university. The article needs to be written, not deleted. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Notability is not in question. Enigma ^message 17:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be lovin u long time(Mariah Carey song)[edit]

I'll be lovin u long time(Mariah Carey song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Poorly-named duplicate of I'll Be Lovin' U Long Time that's an unlikely search term (otherwise, I would just have made it into a redirect). I tried to make it a speedy but couldn't find any criteria that fit.... SKS2K6 (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per nom notwithstanding lack of criteria. Common sense dictates.....--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Contents aren't duplicated. Merge relevant details and create redirect at I'll be lovin u long time. Add "(Mariah Carey song)" to the title of the other page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasynnash2 (talk • contribs)
• Delete Actually they are. They are both articles for I'll Be Lovin' U Long Time, a Mariah Carey song. The article at I'll Be Lovin' U Long Time was there before this one was created. As there is no other songs under this title, there is no need for this one here, as "I'll Be Lovin' U Long Time" is a more plausible search term then "I'll be lovin u long time(Mariah Carey song)" Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, actually they aren't. Maybe I'm being harsh but, duplicated means the content would be the same. It isn't. It is however, an article about a subject that is already covered. Both articles have good elements which combined make a better article than either one currently does on its own. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Redundant article, unlikely search term. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity which bit is thought to be an unlikely search term. I think not capitalising things or using the ' correctly are likely to be common errors if searching for information about this song. I grant you most people won't include "(Mariah Carey song)" in the search but, I thought this was pretty standard as part of the article naming conventions. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People won't search it with the parentesees, that's why its an unliky search term. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes search with parentheses, especially if it's for a band or a song name that I expect will take me to a redirect page. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 18:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the vast majority of searchers would not. And besides, this title isn't exactly a common one. And it's not capitalized correctly. Nor is there a space before the first bracket. :P SKS2K6 (talk) 19:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contributors to this debate seem to be underestimating how very very very cheap redirects are. I'd have a redirect just for the handful of people who may have watchlisted the article we're discussing. AndyJones (talk) 12:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A line has to be drawn somewhere. Every single article can have tens, if not a hundred, different possible search terms. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 23:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per WP:BOLD. It could be deleted as a search for this namespace is unlikely; speedy close. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leonid Savin[edit]

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

(Still) not noticeable Eiland (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per CSD G4, recreated material previously deleted after afd discussion. There's no information about activity since the last afd. No reason to have an annual afd discussion. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• abstain. I can't guage his notability in Ukraine. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete If it is in fact a duplicate of deleted material (not an admin so no way for me to compare). Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It's been G4 tagged. WilliamH (talk) 16:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I was going to mention that it had already been tagged but, I didn't really look at who tagged it or knew of a way to verify whether it had actually been done by someone that had both copies for comparison purposes. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy declined, it was not the same article. This one is improved, with references. No comment yet on notability. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 17:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How true! Savin has gone on the run from the Ukraine, sneaking back into to desecrate a monument to the Ukrainian nation on Mt Hoverla. (The incident had already been added to that page). This was big news in the Ukraine, even if certain environmentalists are embarrassed about how easily he infiltrated their organisations. It is a shame that rather than learning from their experience, they go into denial - even to the extent of trying to have the interesting page about him deleted.Harrypotter (talk) 00:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Thanks for the heads up on this. Aside from my own ideas about how important it is for us to be aware of the developments and leadership of nationalist and racist movements - his latest actions as leader of the Eurasian Youth Movement have generated a variety of secondary source material which is independent of each other and Savin, e.g.
• http://www.fsumonitor.com/stories/102607BM.shtml
• http://action-ukraine-report.blogspot.com/2007/10/aur884-oct-28-memory-is-fate-of-proud.html
• http://www.khpg.org.ua/en/index.php?id=1193162601

which is notability according to Wikipedia's guidelines on notability of people. Paki.tv (talk) 07:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete His notability is marginal at best. He is not the leader of the movement and only is one of the members. He was charged with public mischief for vandalism along with 2 other accomplices and is not being singled out as someone special. My fear is that this undue attention to petty criminal makes him out to be more important than he really is. His achievements are next to non-existent: a cleaner and a journalist. He is not featured prominently even in Ukraine, where he is charged with mischief for vandalism. The improvement over the last deleted version is very insignificant and does not change his notability per WP guidelines.--Hillock65 (talk) 12:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He is a leader according to their own website, which is linked on the page, where it says quite clearly under a picture of him : Начальник Сумской Сетевой Ставки ЕСМ Леонид Савин Paki.tv (talk) 14:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It says he is the leader of regional Sumy chapter of a very marginal organization in Ukraine. One of many chapters. Why all of a sudden he is more prominent than, say Crimea or Kharkiv chapter leaders or the other two accomplices in the vandalism case? Are we planning to write articles on them as well? At least that will prove why an absolutely insignificant person is being elevated to someone deserving mentioning in an encyclopedia. --Hillock65 (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing his leadership makes him notable - it is you that are claiming that he is just a rank and file member rather than someone in a position of authority with in the organisation - what i am arguing is that his position combined with a variety of secondary independent sources on his activities are what make him notable - as per wikipedia guidelines. Paki.tv (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• delete he's just a petty vandal. Per WP:NOTE. Ostap 15:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. —brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete petty vandal who has been charged with public mischief, as have countless other people who also fail to meet WP:BIO standards. JBsupreme (talk) 08:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per Billboard charting. Black Kite 23:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm So Hood[edit]

I'm So Hood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested redirect. Song is non-notable and should redirect, per WP:MUSIC#SONGS. Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable AlbinoFerret (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable. - House of Scandal (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Please explain what portion of the notability guidelines you are applying to say this. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No it's not, it didn't chart and it's not the subject of any reliable sources. If it gets redirected, others will keep on undoing the redirect. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and lock to the article on the album. Plausible search term, and any reliably sourced information can easily be included in the album's article until the time where there is such quality and quantity to justify splitting out again. -- saberwyn 21:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete, redirect to We the Best I'm unsure on this one, because the vid was in MTV heavy rotation for awhile last year, but I didn't also hear it on the radio alot and can't find chart information, and usually MTV's rotation decisions are suspicious or wacky at best. Nate • (chatter) 23:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:MUSIC, WP:RS.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 23:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Restored AfD tag after nearly three days down. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The single peaked at #19 on the Billboard Hot 100 in 2007 (Billboard - DJ Khaled's Chart history), and it's his best charting single (see DJ Khaled article, DJ Khaled#Discography). Holiday56 (talk) 11:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Now that is a valid keep reason. Thanks H56. (I just went to add it to the article, someone beat me to it.) I would close this myself, were it not for the large number of other delete !votes. That said: - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Charting single is notable under WP:MUSIC. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete by User:PeterSymonds per CSD G1011 - blatant advertising. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CeraSport[edit]

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

WP:ADVERT »xytram« talk 14:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC) Update: This may not be required as someone has already tagged it for SPEEDY[reply]

• Looks like a speedy delete as a possible copyvio, although I can't find an online source. Nothing wrong with a proper article on the stuff, but this isn't it. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 14:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and restore redirect to The Midnight Cabaret. --MCB (talk) 07:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight Cabaret[edit]

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

Non-notable theatrical group, run by students at a college. The whole article reads like an advert. Users User:Doctorniatpac and User:Divinebovine have both reverted edits made by myself and User:WilliamH. WilliamH originally added the prod tag to the page, before it was removed. I've discussed this article on William's talkpage in terms of the way forward. I originally created the article as a redirect to the film The Midnight Cabaret. I ask that if the result of this AfD is delete, that the closing admin restores the redirect. Lugnuts (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close. This is a legitimate redirect to The Midnight Cabaret, and not a matter for deletion. If User:Divinebovine restores the theatre group info again, he will most likely be blocked for a WP:3RR violation. WilliamH (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Why has this been closed? I don't see any resolution. I do, however, see that the article is, right now, one about the theatre group again. The argument that this problem is covered by 3RR is wrong since clearly it's possible to edit-war without breaching 3RR. Can I propose that we simply re-open this discussion? AndyJones (talk) 12:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...And just to clarify, we don't need to worry that a delete consensus here would prevent the article being a redirect (even a protected redirect) to another legitimate topic. That isn't a problem. AndyJones (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rjd0060 (talk) 14:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Why was this relisted after only two days? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer it was closed then re-opened at my request. See here. AndyJones (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non notable theater group. Single reference is to a blog from the same school that the theater group is from. AlbinoFerret (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Trim and Merge/Redirect into Sarah Lawrence College.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If this must come to deletion then I have no problem with it running its course. I think the redirect to The Midnight Cabaret is much more warranted than that which pertains to a non notable theatre group though. WilliamH (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Socs generally aren't notable. Much better sources would be needed to keep this. AndyJones (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete content and restore redirect - non notable theatre group. Lugnuts (talk) 07:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Note that Lugnuts is also the nom. AndyJones (talk) 07:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point, well made! That dastardly Lugnuts trying to vote more than once! Just ensuring that the redirect is kept, or if this org is notable, that it becomes a disambig page and the content is moved to Midnight Cabaret (theatre group), or something along those lines. Lugnuts (talk) 11:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the article on Sarah Lawrence, as per the previous editor's comments. But the article needs a good trimming. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with the nom that The Midnight Cabaret is a better redirect target than Sarah Lawrence College. AndyJones (talk) 07:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to The Midnight Cabaret as suggested. (jarbarf) (talk) 23:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 19:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chairman or Chief[edit]

Chairman or Chief (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable and original research. Not substantively edited since its creation on 2 October 2005. Scolaire (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Scolaire (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Appears to be based on a notable 1971 book, Chairman or Chief: The Role of the Taoiseach in Irish Government, but the OR has to go. Suggest moving the article to the book title minus the OR. Viriditas (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - A notable academic Brian Farrell has written and published a book on this topic, so why is User:Jtdirl being accused of original research?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Snappy56 (talk • contribs)

  Maybe because he, not Farrell, wrote the article, and it's not sourced from Farrell or anyone else? Scolaire (talk) 19:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect The book is the only source for the article. Suggests either OR or copyvio (though I'd guess unintentional). Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original research. Nearly all of the people mentioned, including two Irish Taoisigh, post-date the book's publication. WillOakland (talk) 21:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the book may be notable, but no evidence that the term is in any wide use. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; despite the 1971 book, the article is really just a vehicle for OR, and there's no evidence that the term is in wide use or of encyclopedic importance. --MCB (talk) 07:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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