The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intereffectuality[edit]

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

I believe this is a hoax.

• Google Scholar does not know this word - see here.
• Google finds only this article.
• I can find no trace of the magazine Journal of Critical Aspect cited as a reference.
• The other three references are books and do exist. I have consulted one of them {Loiseaux and Fraistat): it contains absolutely no reference to "Intereffectuality".
• While getting it from the library I checked the indexes of every other book in the same catalogue section - about four shelf feet - and found no mention of the word.

In summary, I can find no evidence that this word has been used before. If not actually a hoax made up one day, it is a protologism unsupported by evidence. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 22:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, hoax. (I had a minor in textual criticism. The terminology of that discipline generally doesn't use small words to define big ones, the way this article does!) --Dhartung | Talk 22:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, I thought the style was quite convincing; in fact, I wondered if it had been written by the Postmodernism Generator, but I don't think that goes as far as inventing new words, it just re-shuffles the old ones. JohnCD (talk) 23:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as hoax per nom and per Dhartung, seems to have certainly been made up. The fake sources are enough for me to call this one a G3. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article's creator denies that it's a hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete due to crystal ball concerns. Creating a redirect would be fine except that this song is not from the album to which a redirect is suggested. Davewild (talk) 12:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone's At It[edit]

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

Not yet a notable song; hasn't been released and won't be for a few more months. Violates WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:18, 16 March 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)} 22:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom., also for lack of sources. JohnCD (talk) 22:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 23:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it lacks sources and violates WP:CRYSTAL. –Dream out loud (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Alright, Still, article about CD containing song. It's a viable search item for now. B.Wind (talk) 05:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Kubigula (talk) 04:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dawnchaser[edit]

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

Non-notable music producer - No reliable coverage - I'm seeing myspace and various fleeting references that are otherwise tenuous. Article fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. [1] Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I see forum posts and download links but no articles about this person. If the claims in the article are true and can be documented with reliable soures, then it would be keepable, but I've not found any such sources. -- Whpq (talk) 22:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• strong delete - I deleted his myspace link per policy. I wanted to delete all the peacocking and unsupported hyperbole from this article, but realized that this would leave almost no content. If this article is 90% peacocking, and as Whpq says no sources can be found, this is an almost certain delete. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 12:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sanches Viva[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:PORNBIO criteria; unreferenced; added a PROD template and was removed by someone who just slapped on more porn titles which does not add a reason for notability AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As far as I can tell, he fails WP:PORNBIO - no awards, no notability established. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the LGBT WikiProject discussion board. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all, I see no arguments being made for deletion in this discussion. There is a divison of opinion over whether a merge and redirect is appropriate but this does not need an AFD discussion to be implemented. Davewild (talk) 12:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nite Owl[edit]

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

Also nominating Silk Spectre, Captain Metropolis, Comedian (comics), Hooded Justice, and Ozymandias (comics). Most of the articles have no assertion of notability outside of the comics themselves; putting the relevant info into List of Watchmen characters would be the best thing to do with these. Even with the upcoming film, not enough third party commentary (none in the articles, or just original research, and not much dealing with the characters themselves looking for sources.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If you want them merged, then you should start with merge tags. This is "Articles for Deletion" not "Articles for Merging." —Quasirandom (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the plot summary for all the characters is already in the main characters list, I don't see the point of a merge. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• So redirect all. This seems like a waste of time. --Dhartung | Talk 22:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Drakkenfyre - Given that this page has much more detail than the list of characters page, and given that if you merged all the character pages it would become one of the longer pages on Wikipedia and therefore less accessable, I think this is a bad idea. As Wikipedia's guidelines for deletion say: "Articles that are short and unlikely to be expanded can often be merged into a larger article or list." This is not a short article and it is likely to be expanded when the upcoming movie is released. I have reviewed the other character pages you've nominated for deletion and linked to here and this seems to hold true for all of them. Drakkenfyre (talk) 11:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the LGBT WikiProject discussion board. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect all to List of Watchmen characters - they all fail WP:FICT. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. There is coverage, ranging from incidental to substantial, of most if not all these characters in seemingly reliable sources... interviews (1, 2) that discuss casting and character in the upcoming film, entries in Toonopedia, and I'd venture plenty more for reliable sources for those willing to search them out.--ragesoss (talk) 22:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Silk Spectre, Ozymandias, Nite Owl, Comedian. Each main character is sufficiently signifigant in both story terms and metafictional/symbolic status to warrant a separate page. And the upcoming film coverage will mean expansion for each. We don't want one crowded megapage.--Noclevername (talk) 23:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Change the List of Watchmen Characters to a List of Watchmen Supporting Characters. The critical analysis of each major character is detailed and would be a loss to the Internet and Wikipedia if it were lost. --Eideteker (talk) 02:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete all, fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 13:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yung JoJo Tha Prince (rapper)[edit]

Yung JoJo Tha Prince (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

0 non-wiki ghits, no sources in article to show notability. Possible WP:COI issues. Contested prod. Fabrictramp (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are albums by this artist, and also get 0 non-wiki, non-myspace hits, with no sources in articles to show notability:

Let's Get Tha Money (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Come Ride With Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Yung Cash Ent. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--Fabrictramp (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all for failing notability guidelines for music/record labels. I couldn't find any coverage in reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:V. Given the alleged chart position of the first album, it could be a WP:HOAX. Charting albums usually show up somewhere. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Was previously speedied at Young JoJo Tha Prince. I think this could very well indeed be a hoax, but will refrain from tagging it for now. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all because they are not notable. In my opinion, no rapper is notable. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Article doesn't fail WP:V per [2] and is likely not a hoax, however, there is a distinct lack of notability - soundclick, myspace, answers.com etc..etc.. causing it to fail WP:MUSIC. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - all fail WP:MUSIC. BWH76 (talk) 11:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:NOT. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 08:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of web hosting services[edit]

Comparison of web hosting services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Invites WP:OR and likely to become a link farm for NN hosts. Appears Web hosting service can sufficiently cover this area in an encyclopedic verifyable manner. Hu12 (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it please. It's only been here a day or so. Please give it a chance to become a good article. See Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients for a similar established article. Also note that saying it invites original research doesn't mean it has original research. If there are a lot of problematic links added, we can remove them. --Vergency (talk) 21:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it looks more like spam than anything else, and it's not even complete. This is not the place for this kind of content. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We usually draw the line by allowing certain lists of products, but not lists of services. Web hosting services are definitely out, though: there are far too many to list even a small subset, and they change constantly. Both of these factors, as well as spam concerns, make it impossible for us to maintain this list. There are plenty of other web sites which maintain catalogs of web hosts. Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:OR seems to be the main complaint, yet it doesn't appear in the article. As for changing constantly, I suggest that infant services not be listed. E.g. the four currently listed are each well established. --Jesdisciple (talk) 00:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no complaints regarding the Oversight privilege here. Perhaps you mean something else? Zetawoof_(ζ) 00:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it was OR :) --Vergency (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • In any case, the other page referenced was a list of invalid reasons for speedy deletion. AFD would be perfectly appropriate for deleting a page full of original research. This isn't really the complaint being voiced here, though. Zetawoof_(ζ) 00:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, and I'm trying to correct that... --Jesdisciple (talk) 00:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. per my nom. Clearly fails Wikipedia:NOT#INTERNET. "Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers..". Web hosting service can sufficiently cover this area in an "encyclopedic verifyable manner". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so many things that do not belong in an encyclopedia (such as Comparison of web hosting services) are excluded or removed. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers, this is neither.--Hu12 (talk) 01:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is very useful, as it tells readers the difference between major services in an easy to read table. --Vergency (talk) 01:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree... The directories that I have found don't directly compare the services. --Jesdisciple (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • See, for example http://www.free-webhosts.com/. There are plenty of comparison sites on the net. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per User:Hu12. Fails Wikipedia:NOT#INTERNET Chris! _ct 03:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I'm surprised to see this AfD, because I prod'd it shortly after creation. The creator wrote "I'm just making this page so I can watch it" on the talk page, so I didn't think there would be any objection. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was talking about the talk page. --Jesdisciple (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Delicious carbuncle. There are other sites that do that, so put a link on Web hosting service. Plus, there's very little chance of this being complete. Regarding Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients, software is (marginally) less changing than web hosting services. -anabus_maximus (Talk to me) 02:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Harden[edit]

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

I'm having trouble verifying that this young actor even exists, much less is notable- googling his name and the film which made him famous yields a surprising 0 hits. I hate to be an old cynic, but could this possibly be a not entirely true article? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC) FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I was actually about to file an Afd for this article as it seems like a hoax and none of the information is verifiable. Anyway I don't think the article asserts actual notability as a few small uncredited roles wouldn't merit a wikipedia article to begin with even if the inforamtion was verifiable. AngelOfSadness talk 21:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and AOS. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom--Hu12 (talk) 22:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & AOS. I suspect a hoax also or a self vanity piece, in any case no notability. The only link provided is to Facebook, which is hardly a reliable source. No entry in IMDB and nothing found via Google. — Becksguy (talk) 07:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete as the article is patent nonsense and an obvious hoax. Opening sentence claims subject starred in a film, whose link leads to an article about a singer. Also, a Facebook search is not an acceptable link to be posted as a reference. –Dream out loud (talk) 18:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• comment - if this is a living person and a minor, are we (Wikipedia) even allowed to have an article on him with zero reliable sources? I just deleted some personally identifying info from the article - his school, and his parents' first names - as I'm sure we're not supposed to have that sort of thing in an article about a minor unless maybe it's been published in a reliable third-party source. Don't want to see a future headline like "stalker uses Wikipedia to find child actor". AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 09:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John A. McPake[edit]

John A. McPake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There is no assertion of notability whatever in the article, and none available through the Internet. The article was created by the same person(s) who created Gleda and the Sparkling-Cloth, a vanity-press book which I have also nominated for deletion, along with Frank Wilson (children's author), which was also created by the same person(s). You may want to see the related deletion discussions. Neither McPake, Wilson, or the book in question are notable in any verifiable way. Qworty (talk) 04:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Littleteddy (roar!) 10:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep and comment - Actually, I do see assertions of notability in the article - that he has exhibited locally and internationally, and "has been elected President of Manchester Academy of Fine Arts". I've found a few links - [3] and [4] and[5] - that mention him. I feel I'm unqualified to comment on how notable he is as an artist, and I can appreciate the nominator's suspicion that this article could have been just part of a walled garden of non-notability - but this artist seems to pass an initial smell-test, for me, anyway. The article is poor quality, but could maybe be improved to Wikipedia standards. There are indeed some web-references, at least. Shouldn't punish a possibly notable artist just because he illustrated a wikispammer's book. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No sources given. I would not object to a recreation if the editor takes the effort to show why McPake should be considered worthy of inclusion based on independent sources. I see little such here. B.Wind (talk) 05:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - lack of media coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- even if the person is notable (of which there is litle proof), it is not the reader's responsibility to go digging around the internet for notability. The AfD is to determine what to do with an article as it stands, not what it may be. We need to keep the bar set high for notability and citations.--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 04:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, notability has not been established. Davewild (talk) 13:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gleda and the Sparkling-Cloth[edit]

Gleda and the Sparkling-Cloth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The proposed deletion of this self-published book is related to the Frank Wilson deletion proposal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Frank_Wilson_%28children%27s_author%29 Please see the arguments given there. Thank you. Qworty (talk) 04:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Littleteddy (roar!) 10:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Found one source so far, beyond web sites selling the book: [6]. Powers ^T 18:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The author seems to fail notability criteria; therefore, so does the book. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure that logic is sound. Is it necessarily true that a notable book has a notable author? (Here's an example of a notable book whose authors do not have articles: King & King. Lack of article is not necessarily indicative of lack of notability, but it's anecdotal, at least.) Powers ^T 23:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Self-publications tend to reflect the notability of the author/publisher. Also, I have problems with the prose (extreme clean up needed!), the lack of sources, and the lack of assertion of notability (nothing indicating independent review or discussion of the book, no mention of appearances in best selling lists, etc.). Delete B.Wind (talk) 05:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. Canterbury Tail talk 01:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Santiam Junction, Oregon[edit]

Santiam Junction, Oregon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

It's a road and railway junction. The community may well prove me wrong but I cannot see how a simple road and rail junction is notable for inclusion. It'd need to be pretty significant. The article says it is the site of the National Register of Historic Places-listed Oregon Pacific Railroad Linear Historic District, which be taht as it may is referring to a large area of track and land, not to a particular railway and road junction. Canterbury Tail talk 21:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Towns/villages are inherently notable regardless of size. And this one has its own National Register of Historic Places-listed district. And I've never seen a community that has it's own airport up for AfD before. --Oakshade (talk) 21:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with Oakshade. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep What they said. Communities are inherently notable; this one even has its own airport. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm inclined to keep this as a notable landmark, but I can't find evidence it was ever an inhabited community; and the "airport" is basically an emergency landing strip often used for mountain rescues. The significant use of the site, aside from as a regional landmark for driving/hiking directions, is as a highway maintenance facility. As such it may be best merged with the airport, which is marginally notable. --Dhartung | Talk 22:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please listing in the national register of historic places makes is very important too yuckfoo (talk) 00:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Okay I misread it. I didn't actually realise it was also a town. That is my mistake and my problem. It didn't state that it was a community as well when I started the notability thing on it and didn't pay enough attention to the subsequent edits. Previously it only said it was a road and rail junction. I withdraw the nomination. Canterbury Tail talk 01:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 notability and WP:SNOW (non-admin) - Milk's Favorite Cookie 17:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lunar ark[edit]

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

Unreferenced original research, prod removed with no real explanation Beeblbrox (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep maybe you should look for sources yourself first?--Otterathome (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The original article was a copyright violation, but the subject has received significant media coverage which meets the notability and verifiability requirements. If nothing comes of the "ark" proposals, the article can be deleted on the grounds that Wikipedia is not for news of no historical significance, but for the present we should accept the sources' view that this is a serious possibility. EALacey (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is permanent. If it is serious enough to have an article today, it will have to be serious enough to have an article permanently on the failed or succeeded proposals.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Even if this particular proposal goes nowhere, the general idea is notable. --Dhartung | Talk 23:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, or perhaps Merge to Colonization of the Moon. There is no formal name for this project and there are very few sources that go beyond saying that the idea is a possibility. I think that it would sensibly fit into the existent article on moon colonization. BWH76 (talk) 11:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Kubigula (talk) 04:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Social Marketplace[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, WP:NOT#REPOSITORY Hu12 (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Notable subject which could use an article. But this isn't it. Needs work. Quarterwit (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is a category Category:Social networks which encompasses most of these, and more. The only reference in this article is a wikimirror at answers, a recursive reference! I'd agree that the article could exist. Yngvarr (c) 20:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The term social marketplace does exist but the uses here are self-applied and not wholly congruent. This likely exists primarily to link out to "social marketplaces" that aren't notable enough for articles. Fails WP:NOT#DIR. --Dhartung | Talk 21:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Maybe there would be room in Wikipedia for an article on "Social Marketplace", but it wouldn't be anything like this article, so we should dump this and if someone wants to create an article on the real meaning of a social marketplace, as shown by Google Scholar and Google Books searches, they can do so. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per my nom. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so many things that do not belong in an encyclopedia (such as this) are excluded or removed. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be encyclopedic, this is WP:NOT.--Hu12 (talk) 13:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the articles fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 13:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grayson Space Navy[edit]

Grayson Space Navy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable sub-subtopic of a science fiction series. Completely in-universe infodump unsupported by any third-party sources. Fails WP:N, WP:FICT. WP:WAF compliance would require a complete rewrite (and third-party sources). Not worth merging anywhere in any level of detail. Sandstein (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a reference to the Honorverse and the fact that it is in-universe is not a reason to delete. --Eastmain (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Maybe the in-universe thing is just an editing issue, but the notability factor is a reason to delete. The only reference provided is an internal link to an article about one of the novels, not a reliable secondary source as required to establish notability. Beeblbrox (talk) 00:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and check-out all the other non-notable stuff ((Honorverse)). This article along with many others in this, space, are all written in an entirly in-universe style and amount to little more than plot summary. Note the <noinclude> text from the above linked template;
  It outlines articles about the fictional universe, from the point of view of someone inside the story. Meaning it makes no reference to the world outside of the books. However, the linked articles may or may not distinguish between those points of view.
  This indicates a fundamental issue with the editorial focus of some of the editors involved. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, notability has not been established. Davewild (talk) 13:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help Explorer Viewer[edit]

Help Explorer Viewer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:N, WP:RS and WP:V ukexpat (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not demonstrating notability. I can't find any independent sources discussing this software that aren't self-published; without these an article wouldn't be able to do anything but paraphrase the software's own website. EALacey (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Kill it, it looks like spam. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutrally. There was a number of web publications on the subject that I've seen in the past (something like [7] but it's more recent one). But if the Wikipedia community has no interest in this topic (I feel it since the article is not developed any more; and sorry, I don't have enough time for editing it), feel free to remove the article. --Fastboy (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 13:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Wilson (children's author)[edit]

Frank Wilson (children's author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This "children's author" has paid for publication with the vanity press Jeremy Mills [8]. Wilson then apparently wrote this article himself as "rfw" [9], which is a single-purpose account as well as a previously suspected sock puppet of Frank Wilson [10]. This user then went on to create a promotional page for his self-published book, Gleda and the Sparkling-Cloth, which should also be deleted. Niether Wilson nor his single book are notable under the Wikipedia book notability guidelines[11]. Qworty (talk) 04:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 16:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, seresin | wasn't he just...? 20:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; neither the author nor the book meet notability guidelines. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - promotional in nature; written by the subject of the article. B.Wind (talk) 05:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as a copyvio. Davewild (talk) 13:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ecomaterials[edit]

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

This article was originally deleted via AfD back in March of 2006. When the article was re-created it was tagged with a speedy-repost, but I think it should be re-assessed for the following reasons:

1. A lot has changed in terms of environmental awareness in the past two years. I don't know how many google hits the term "Ecomaterials" got in 2006, but in 2008 it gets about 8,000 (also Ecomaterial and "Eco material").
2. The original article was more of an advert for a company that made Ecomaterials (as a trademarked name, I guess), and although the text is essentially the same in the new article, it does not mention the company.

For the record, my position here is Neutral. ... discospinster _talk 20:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral-Delete There are copy-paste copyright issues, as most, if not all, of the article is copied from [12]. Also, the lead in says:

  Ecomaterials is a word that defines construction materials that are ecologically and economically viable.

  , but a Google search turns up a variety of definitions for the term, not limited to construction. Overall, I think that ecomaterial is more of a jargon term than a specific topic for an encyclopedia. Maybe it can be documented on Wiktionary. Also, to keep the Google hits thing in perspective, other environment-related concepts, such as ecotourism, get over two million Google hits [13] Phillip (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Although this should be deleted because of copyright violation. Perhaps it could be rewritten as a good article using sources found on Google. Not sure who wants to do it though. Just a thought. Chris! _ct 03:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete copyvio. B.Wind (talk) 05:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Canley (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do You Think I'm Disco?[edit]

Do You Think I'm Disco? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:N, and WP:V. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Very short non notable article. TheProf | Talk 20:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a notable song per WP:MUSIC; didn't chart, didn't receive any awards, etc. Maybe a merge to Steve Dahl? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:MUSIC, already mentioned in Da Ya Think I'm Sexy?.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 00:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice It's more notable in the realm of Dahl himself (it's one of the things that helps make Dahl notable), but I'm not sure if it qualifies yet for its own article. It didn't chart or anything but it was played a lot back then so it may at least have some offline articles about it. Delete it for now, if anyone can find something to establish it's notability, let it be recreated. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 00:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per WP:MUSIC, songs need to demonstrate notability on their own to warrant an individual article - this song clearly does not. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No assetion of notablility.--MrFish^{Go Fish} 18:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Kubigula (talk) 04:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karma (2008 film)[edit]

Karma (2008 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An article about an upcoming and non-notable movie. Movie is not in the IMDB. Per WP:NOTE, WP:NFF, WP:CRYSTAL Wiki-nightmare (talk) 22:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Article consists almost entirely of a plot summary and trivia section. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. None of the actors listed has this movie in their IMDB listings. Source or delete.--Thalia42 (talk) 23:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Mere absence of IMDB pages is not indicative of a lack of notability (I know of many notable people and films with no IMDB articles, particularly those from countries with non-Latin alphabets). Also, it is hard to figure out how much of the article and the associated actor pages to keep, because they were clearly created to read like an advertisement. However, there do seem to be some reliable third-party sources that talk about the film... Also, the purported release date of April is pretty close. Esn (talk) 01:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Need to dig deeper per [14], [15], [16], [17] Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Not an offense to Wikipedia, can easily flourish into a full sized article. Any "advertisement sounding" sections can easily be NPOV'd. Has respectable media attached, not too much not too little. I believe the point of Wikipedia is to give people a collection of information that could potentially be difficult to find in the first place. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 00:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: On this sources there is an relative lack of information about the movie. The claims in the sources do not seem to indicate much notability. But it's a pretty good indicator/reference for an non-notable movie. Wiki-nightmare (talk) 03:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, seresin | wasn't he just...? 20:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 spam like and no reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I-mag teen magazine[edit]

I-mag teen magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I believe it's non-notable; I added a speedy deletion to the page, but it was contested by the author. I wanted to leave it up to general discussion. Mr. Absurd (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that this page should be deleted, as it would be a noteworthy source of information to anyone interested in researching i-mag for publication in material, or just as a source of more information for the site.

Apologies for my previous comment of 'publicising i-mag'. I didn't mean it in that way - I just meant that if the article was on the internet, people could use it - not us making benefit out of it. I hope you consider reinstating the article.

Jackhowson (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• speedy delete - admitted to be a promotional article on Wikipedia. Absolutely no independent third-party sources given to establish the notability of the website. Wikipedia is not an advertising avenue for people's websites. This is spam. This is a perfect speedy delete. This is what is wrong with Wikipedia. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. CSD G11 B.Wind (talk) 05:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ramesh Maraj[edit]

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

Taking it to AfD per the suggestion of the declined speedy. It's very close to a copyvio, but that aside, the rs coverage is false positives and ghits don't provide any evidence that he passes WP:MUSIC. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article was nomed for Speedy as copy vio (but it wasn't) and as blatant advertising---which it isn't. Barely passes A7 as article claims "distinctive" sound. But I can't find anything about said musician.Balloonman (talk) 04:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I will expand and turn it into a proper article, give me two days until this AFD is closed to prove that this can be a worthwhile article. ~ Dreamy ^§ 13:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, you'll need to find independent reliable sources to show he meets WP:MUSIC, his own site does not qualify. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 14:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lacks Reliable sources and fails WP:MusicPharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, seresin | wasn't he just...? 20:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Falls well short of WP:MUSIC even if non-independent sources were taken at face value. B.Wind (talk) 05:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete cannot find anything else other than his site and copies on other sites, no real or reliable sites to use. ~ Cheers! Dreamy ^§ 13:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 13:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Media representation of Hugo Chávez[edit]

Media representation of Hugo Chávez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

First of all, this page is irredeemably POV. It entirely fails to note that Chávez has garnered plenty of positive press in the West: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], for instance. It strings together a bunch of loosely-connected incidents and makes it seem, in violation of WP:SYN, that there's some sort of media conspiracy against Chávez, when the picture is hardly as clear. It also distorts reality. For instance the last two paragraphs (totally unreferenced) present Chávez' December referendum as no big deal and liken the change to the status quo in the UK or Germany, when in fact, quite a legitimate case can be made that this was a power grab (but in any event, it's not our job to make either argument). We have here a content fork and an essay rather than serious scholarship. Second, the page fails WP:N - of course a major figure like Chávez will be portrayed by the media in one way or another, but that doesn't normally require an article on him. If we can live without Media representations of George W. Bush or Media representations of Benito Mussolini, then surely we can do without this as well. Finally, much of the content is duplicate and exists elsewhere - we already have articles on the coup attempt, on Aló Presidente, on RCTV, etc. Biruitorul (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. I see no problem with this article. The subject is notable, verifiable, and inherently involves reliable media sources. If your 8 sources would help to reduce a perceived POV problem in the article, why are you presenting them here rather than adding them to the article? Cel ^{Talk to me} 20:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it still would have WP:SYN problems - what we need is multiple third-party sources showing that the subject has been of interest to researchers, not an assortment of Wikipedians stringing together articles to make it seem like this is something notable. We need outside confirmation of notability. Biruitorul (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mention WP:SYN, but this doesn't really advance a position or contain a thesis. What position do you see this putting forth? Also, articles of this type should be noted, which allude to the material contained within the article. I don't see a notability issue, as articles like the aforementioned abound; I am, however, concerned with the SYN symptoms that the parent is mentioning. Cel ^{Talk to me} 21:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The position seems rather clear: that Western media is portraying Chávez as an emerging dictator bent on curtailing freedoms and assuming ever-greater powers, when "in fact" (ie, the POV advanced by the SYN) he's a democratically-elected president like any other who's got a bad rap and an array of media outlets (and governments) ganging up against him. Biruitorul (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, even if the article seems POV-pushing to some, that issue has a solution other than deletion. A simple improvement drive on the article can solve that problem. This issue is notable and verifiable, as can be established with sources. Cel ^{Talk to me} 01:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It might be better to retitle this Media coverage of Hugo Chávez; the "representation" is a bit outside what most sources will tell us. See Category:Media coverage and representation. I'm not entirely convinced that this article needs to exist, but I think it is possible for one to exist. Right now it's not much more than a list of incidents. --Dhartung | Talk 23:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it has real world significance and verifiability. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:OR, WP:N, and WP:SYN. The sources given are not about his media coverage - they are simply examples of his coverage in the media. There is no claim to the notability of the subject of the article, namely, the media representation of an individual. The individual himself is without a doubt notable, but his "media representation" (the subject of the article) is not. His media coverage, in other words, isn't the "story" - his actions are. By claiming Chavez's media representation warrants an article on its own, I believe, is an example of WP:SYN, particularly as the article seems to be another article describing his actions. BWH76 (talk) 11:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Hugo Chávez#Chávez and the media (which is essentially keep). The article is too short and redundant to justfy it being a spin-out of the main article. It also could use some NPOV balance. Ursasapien (talk) 11:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - Dhartung makes a very good point, but BWH76 puts forward a very good response to it. If there were third-party reliable sources who were discussing the quality of Hugo Chavez's representation in the media, I think this would be a good article to have. Unfortunately, if this is nothing more than a summary, then yes, WP:SYN and Wikipedia shouldn't have it. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roll of Honour (song)[edit]

Roll of Honour (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable song, fails Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Songs BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, doesn't assert notability in any way. Could possibly be speedied as a copyvio, given that the song's lyrics comprise the vast majority of the page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objection to speedy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lissa Lauria[edit]

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

Based on her IMDB page she hasn't done anything of note yet. Possibly in the future, but for now she isn't notable. IrishGuy ^talk 20:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on her past accomplishments and her future films at such a young age, most notably one upcoming with Uma Thurman (in talks), she is someone to be added to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dobs7 (talk • contribs)
• Delete Fails notability guidelines for actors, regardless of age. Note that the above comment was placed by the page's author, and said user has not made any other edits unrelated to this actress' page yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first submission and edit, but as a writer, would like to begin doing more here. All of what I submitted was based on actual and factual information which can be referenced on this page. Being aware of the boy band, NLT, and having this young lady's name included on V Sevani's page, I thought it would be a very good idea to be able to connect with someone that was named there to gather further information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dobs7 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The references are about the same single film. One film does not notability make. IrishGuy ^talk 20:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but doesn't it make sense that when a name is mentioned in Wikipedia that there usually is interest in finding out who that person is? That's how I even submitted this, because of that reason. This allows people to follow a thread from one person to another giving them greater information which is why this site is here. Just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dobs7 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Wikipedia isn't actually about everything. --Dhartung | Talk 21:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Notability to come. --Dhartung | Talk 21:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After becoming more aware of Wikipedia guidelines, I continue to feel that this is of great interest considering that this person is mentioned on an independent topic from this. I read the following: The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."[1]. Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular" - although not irrelevant - is secondary. With notable, secondarily being 'famous' or 'popular' I feel it deserves to be listed. Again, considering that Lissa Lauria was mentioned on V Sevani's listing, it surely is significant and interesting. BTW, I'm enjoying learning more. I will soon become a greater part of this and hopefully contribute to a greater degree. Thanks.DobsDobs7 (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• delete - if she's significant enough that someone could potentially write a book about her - not just a promo piece from her publicist or her film studio, mind you - then she's worth having a separate article about her on Wikipedia. I don't see that right now. Peripheral people don't get their own articles. Also, btw, I edited the article - every article here is supposed to be written in an encyclopedic style, and assertions of fact are supposed to be supportable. Statements like "Lauria knew that the stage was calling her" aren't really supportable, unless maybe they were reported in an independent third-party source that meets Wikipedia's reliability standards, in which case they should be reported as "in an interview in Variety magazine, Lauria said that she knew that the stage was calling her". AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is unforunate as a new user of Wikipedia, is that I guess I've learned that when something is added to be an extension of another topic, namely V Sevani where Lauria is mentioned, that you can just remove the statement about her and an upcoming film with Uma Thurman. Is that how these things are solved? Do you just delete what proves someone should be included because it proves to be an article of interest? Furthermore, you are getting obviously very personal which I did not think was supposed to happen when 'discussing' this. I am not a publicist or anyone like that. I'm someone that is on the fringes of the industry and knows of NLT and wanted to include the person that was spoken of in that article. If the 'flowery language' of the 'stage was calling her' is offensive to Wikipedia, then I'll change it if you didn't edit it already. But a true statement on V Sevani's page should not have been removed because it helped the reason to delete this. I added it again. It was there to begin with and no one is disputing V Sevani's page.Dobs7 (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as it is a referenced article that asserts notability and that is only a few days old. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • References #5 and 9 are the same reference. As are #8 and 6. Another is a film website, one is an official website, and the last is a variety listing of film credits. None of these are valid reference denoting notability. There is not one reference where Lauria is the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Nor is there any evidence that Lauria meets the following: Has had significant roles or been featured multiple times in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. IrishGuy ^talk 18:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Considering the youth of the article, we should give those interested in editing it more time than but a few days to find additional sources and establish these points. We're not in any kind of a hurry. Plus, some sources are better than none. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - I can appreciate the concern over the speed of AfD from creation of article. I didn't check that when I posted my !vote above. However, you've got to admit, this is like more of a VSCA article than the typical "geez, give the guy a few days to fix it up" submission. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If she seems to be at the start of a career, it's probably worth keeping the article around for now as it is likely it can and would only be expanded and improved over time. If she suddenly just disappears, then, I could see deleting it, but right now it strikes me as premature. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your position. Though, at the same time: we could say the same about every vanity article on Wikipedia. Thus the elder gods gave us WP:N and WP:RS so that we could come to our decisions. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no real problem with Wikipedia having many articles. Early editions of even the most revered encyclopedias had articles entirely based on primary sources and that were wildly inaccurate, but they made do with what they could because it concerned an element of human knowledge. If nothing else, I think Dobs7 makes a valid point below. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: what IrishGuy said, if you investigate Lauria further, you will see many notable accomplishments for such a young age, not only in the field of acting but as a singer/songwriter as well. She is the lead singer (as well as soloist) in an L.A. band called L Squared (obviously from the LL in her name) and if you go to their myspace, their fan base is huge with many street teams, fansites, etc. I agree that deletion is pre-mature, especially with greater notoriety coming from a film in pre-production. Also, according to further online information, she just booked another film made for Lifetime TV called "Jake's Wing". I feel that her page on Wikipedia will be added to and probably very quickly over the next few months. Dobs7 (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Myspace means less than nothing here. Fan sites mean less than myspace here. We want real sources. You're unfortunately making it seem like her Wikipedia article was created in a street-teaming exercise. The request was simple: provide reliable sources to demonstrate her notability. If you want to learn more, read WP:N and WP:RS for clarification. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, I'm not part of a street team. That's actually funny if you knew my age. I added that because of Irishguy saying about 'cult following' and fans. That's the only reason. There has been many realiable sources provided to demonstrate that, and as every day goes by, there seems to be more and more, which will probably continue on a steady basis.Dobs7 (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• One more additional comment - why does someone keep removing the name "Lissa Lauria" off of V Sevani's page? The film that he is in with Lauria and Uma Thurman has been on there for quite some time and is a fact which is spoken of all over the internet. I did not add that originally. But now that the name Lissa Lauria is being discussed if it's notable enough and the possibility of deletion, someone keeps removing her name. I'm beginning to wonder why that is happening and if this hasn't gotten very personal, although I've been told that it should never be so.Dobs7 (talk) 22:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • It is an unsourced statement that doesn't belong in that article. It was originally added by XoBrianaox who only edited four articles and hasn't edited since February. IrishGuy ^talk 23:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsourced? It's all over the internet and is in pre-production. It's also on the production company's site as well as V Sevani's NLT websites. That's how I ended up here. It seems to me that it keeps getting removed because that's the one reason to keep Lissa Lauria's page. My question is, why wasn't it removed from V Sevani's page before? It's been there for quite a while. Why only now? I will put it back with sources as soon as I have time. It's a statement that was put there by someone who obviously felt it was an important part of the young man's career and being his first feature film, it is. Is there a 'higher' authority that a person can appeal to re: the omission from V Sevani's page? If there is, I will find them.Dobs7 (talk) 02:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is removed because it is unsourced...as noted here. IrishGuy ^talk 16:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge and redirect to Dalby, Queensland as per consensus. Davewild (talk) 13:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mayors of Dalby, Queensland[edit]

List of Mayors of Dalby, Queensland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Drastically incomplete list of non-notable people, all mayors of a small Australian town. The article is entirely unsourced. Mattinbgn\^talk 19:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a disputed PROD, see Talk:List of Mayors of Dalby, Queensland for details. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 19:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 19:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Almost everyone on this list will be a permanent red link like this one; therefore, this list serves no purpose. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Mandsford; I see no problem with at least listing the mayors in the town's article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Dalby, Queensland. Mandsford (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Town of Dalby. See for example City of Ipswich to see how this has been done elsewhere. (Note that as with Ipswich I think the names should all be delinked, as they'll almost certainly never have articles that meet Wikipedia standards of notability.) Orderinchaos 20:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. As stand-alone list is fine if its a) complete; and b) of a major LGA (eg. a city). Neither fit the bill here. —Moondyne click! 02:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, Dalby is not really big or important enough to have its own list, but the information is useful and should be kept on the town's article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) nomination withdrawn Whpq (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Marsh[edit]

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

Fails notability guideline WP:PROF, completely unreferenced. TreveX^talk 19:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent updates, good keep TreveX^talk 01:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. I have added references that show he is one of the significant contributors to what is essentially the bible of Social Work undergraduates. Thus, he passes WP:PROF. He is also extremely notable within his field; I'm looking for a source for this right now. This would also pass him on WP:PROF. Also, Google Scholars gives a substantial amount of material that he has authored himself or contributed to, which is another criteria for WP:PROF. I'm sure that the nominator is acting in good faith, but I think it's about time people start improving articles rather than deleting them. Cel ^{Talk to me} 20:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the several criteria at PROF specifically quilfy him? --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1, 2, and 3. Cel ^{Talk to me} 01:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article has been improved, and now shows sufficient notability. --Eastmain (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see a demonstration of notability. Can you be more specific. I generally support inclusion but I need a hint or two here. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kevin: I'd like to see some stronger evidence of notability. Dean of a school is a good sign, but not enough to be automatically notable, I think. And WP:PROF #3 talks about the author or editor of a widely used text, but he seems to be neither, merely one of a large number of contributors to a text edited by someone else. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's very seldom that one individual writes an entire textbook in this field, especially when the textbook is aimed being an extremely authoritative text. Merely being selected as one of the contributors should be enough to make him notable. Cel ^{Talk to me} 01:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I spent a little time on Google and see stong evidence that he is well noticed in academic cirlces and is published all over the web. While I'd prefer to see something about him more than by him, there is an inference from the widespread involvement in projects and as a lecturer at multiple universities. I think that the article is weak, but that is no reason for deletion. --Kevin Murray (talk) 07:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep per Cel. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mongohorn[edit]

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

non-notable band, no hits on Google News. Apparently created by an editor with a COI: Mongohorn (talk · contribs), who has made no other edits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per criterion A7 (non-notable band), so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Shellbacks[edit]

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

No indication of significant third-party coverage. The sources of the article are all from the band directly and their music so far has been self-released. For now, they don't meet the requirements of the relevant guideline. Pichpich (talk) 19:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete Utterly fails WP:MUSIC; no major label albums, no chart singles, no reliable sources, etc. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nothing to indicate that they pass any criterion of WP:BAND. No significant coverage found.--Michig (talk) 21:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• strong delete. Utterly fails eveything. Blatant promospam. WP:VSCA. I tried editing the article to try to make it masquerade as encyclopedic, but was completely blown away by the spamicity of the article. If this sort of article can't be speedied, there must be a problem with the process. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's sort of an ambiguity about whether one should speedy spammish articles on notable bands (I believe we should but not all admins do so in practice). And there was some sort of weak claim of notability so probably the speedy deletion on those grounds would have also been declined. Pichpich (talk) 00:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any claim to notability, in the article. There was maybe some hyperbole and peacocking, but that's not the same. To me, a notability claim in the article would look something like "X is notable because..." - except, you know, written better than that. And this article definitely is a CSD:G11, I think. Though, it's true, I've tried to G11 spam articles many times, was rebuffed by editors, and had to take it to AfD. Thankfully, those sorts of AfDs result in a delete 90% of the time; I just think it's a tremendous waste of all these good editors' time to have to bring such articles here. Oh well. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, consensus is that sources are avaialble to verify and establish notability. Davewild (talk) 14:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Godzilla: Monster War[edit]

Godzilla: Monster War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:N, WP:RS and WP:V ukexpat (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; the best sources will be ten-year-old Japanese gaming magazines, but I have no doubt they exist. The general rule seems to be that actual mainstream console games are notable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The game does have a page on neoseeker, gamefaqs and gamespot. However those pages have little info regarding the game itself. Besides the picture found in the article seems to be from a gameboy color game.--Lenticel ^(talk) 22:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 19:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. What actions have been taken to verify that the article is not just in need of improvement, but irredeemable? --Kizor 20:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I've found a few profile pages for the game [26], [27], [28] which do confirm things such as developer and release date, and suggest notability, but they don't provide that much information to build a verifiable article from. I've been able to find one review, though I don't know how reliable the website is. The existing information can probably be edited and sourced to the game manual (if somebody has it). The profile pages and the fact it is a mainstream console game suggest notability. I'm going to say keep. Also, as mentioned above, I don't doubt there's Nintendo magazines out there with reviews that could be used to make a reception section. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, It has an entry on Allgame (Godzilla: Kajuu Dai Kessen), and GameSpot (Godzilla: Kaijuu Daikessen). It was released December 9, 1994 in Japan for the Super Famicom. The serial number is SHVC-AG2J-JPN. It was published by Toho (or perhaps they just own the copyright to Godzilla), and developed by Alfa System (according to GameSpot). It's a 2D fighting game. The playable monsters are Godzilla, Mechagodzilla, Mechagodzilla 2, Super Mechagodzilla, Anguirus, Biollante, Gigan, Guoten, King Ghidorah, Megalon, and Mothra. I believe there were two Godzilla games made for the SNES/Super Famicom. The other was a 1993 Super Famicom/SNES game called Super Godzilla, also distributed by Toho and it was released in English and Japanese.

I don't speak Japanese, but using the symbols found on enwiki and the interlanguage links on the Japanese Wikipedia, this category on jawiki is the category for SNES games. I searched for Godzilla and found this page about a 1993 videogame with Godzilla, King Ghidorah, Mecha-Godzilla, and Biollante, which is in the category Godzilla films and Super NES games. I think that's the Super Famicom version of Super Godzilla though (based on the year and since the title is <something> Godzilla). The list of SNES games lists the release date of that game as December 22, 1993. And yes, from the Google translation I see that's Super Godzilla.

The Japanese Wikipedia page for Alfa System mentions Godzilla and Toho and Street Fighter II, possibly indicating a fighting game, although I believe it's mentioning a PC Engine game since I can't find the sub-title of this game, 怪獣大決戦.

The list of SNES games lists a Godzilla game under 1994 with the release date December 9 with a price of 9,980 yen, which is this game I believe. That link currently redirects to Godzilla though. The Google translation of the Japanese Godzilla article mentions it, under "Armageddon monster Godzilla." I'm sure there were reviews of the game in Japan when it came out. The Japanese title of the game is ゴジラ 怪獣大決戦 according to the Japanese Wikipedia. There are 2,100 Google hits for that (14,700 hits if you put a space after Godzilla). --Pixelface (talk) 05:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, like Prosfilaes said, I'm sure coverage of this game exists in Japanese magazines from 1994. Help from WP:CVG/M and Japanese-speaking Wikipedians may be needed, but sources can be found and translated before our deadline. --Pixelface (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the Troubles as suggested below. Bduke (talk) 07:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Murder triangle[edit]

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

Unreferenced sub-stub, apparent neologism, possibly reflecting a particular POV on The Troubles in Northern Ireland. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep- seems to me that is refering to something notable and historical, but I am not exactly sure. AndreNatas (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, there were a lot of killings there during The Troubles, but the issue is whether this label is anything other than a neologism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, numerous sources easily found. GuardianIrish EchoThe Postetc. There is a book, Dublin Bombings and the Murder Triangle. The term has other uses including a mystery novel and similar application in other cities, but none seem collectively as notable. --Dhartung | Talk 19:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge an explanation of the term into the Troubles (e.g., "The area comprising East Tyrone, South Londonderry and North Armagh saw such levels of violence that it became known as the 'murder triangle'.") Dhartung's sources show that the term is not a neologism, but expanding this into a full article would be duplicating information that belongs elsewhere. EALacey (talk) 21:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per EALacey. BWH76 (talk) 11:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per EALacey. Based on Google listings, there are several different uses of the phrase "murder triangle"; ultimately, this could wind up being a dab page once the literary articles pan out. B.Wind (talk) 05:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge until someone decides to write a decent article. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, sources have been provided to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 14:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Doktorski[edit]

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

Self advertisement for non notable musician. Fails to meet the standards of Wikipedia:Notability (music) and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Ism schism (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Self advertisement. Non notable that does not meet the standards of Wikipedia:Notability (music) and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Ism schism (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This is fairly well disguised advertising, and although there are many sources, the performer seems to fail WP:MUSIC entirely. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Absolutely, meets our music notability criteria. If an artist meets our music notability criteria (he does), the individual is notable enough for an article. Badagnani (talk) 19:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It further appears, from examining the past several thousand edits of the editor proposing deletion, that 90%+ of his/her deletion proposals are for individuals or items related to ISKCON (the Hare Krishna movement). While editors are not prohibited from editing or attempting to delete articles in a single subject area, I believe this shows some sort of agenda or WP:POINT. Bringing one of the top American classical accordionists into such a battleground is really not proper. I recommend the editor branch out into attempting to delete articles on a wide variety of subjects, not just those related to ISKCON-related subjects. Badagnani (talk) 03:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please state how individual meets the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (music). Otherwise, there is no reason to see this article as anything but an advertisement. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually, you'll need to state how he doesn't. I've actually read the criteria and see that he meets them. The burden of proof is on you. Badagnani (talk) 19:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He fails all 12 Criteria for musicians and ensembles. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The 6 CDs belie your wish (hope?). Badagnani (talk) 19:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They are not from a major label. Wikipedia is not a place for advertisements. Next? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's not a good idea to comment (let alone start a deletion discussion) if you don't know what you're talking about. Bridge Records, Inc. is one of the top classical record labels. Badagnani (talk) 20:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Still, not a major label, and only one album on an independent label. More notability is required. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't continue to discuss with you if you don't carefully read the article and compare it to the notability guidelines. I suppose I need to set them out for you. They say 2 CDs. There are 6. Badagnani (talk) 20:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not disagree with the number of albums. But only one album is on an independent label. AND, Its still an article a person wrote about themselves. Its an advertisment. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot continue to discuss with you if you don't carefully do your research. Several are on independent labels. It is strange that I have had to actually do this research and point out our own guidelines for you each step of the way rather than you (as nominator) doing that. By the way, the word "it's" contains an apostrophe. Badagnani (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• (Weakish) Keep, but trim to relevant, independently sourced information. This may be a vanity article, but the following links suggest to me that he has received sufficient coverage as an accordionist for an article here: [29], [30], [31]. The chess instructor/eBay seller type stuff can go a.s.a.p., however.--Michig (talk) 21:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And since the record label that has released at least one of his albums has also had one of their albums receive a Grammy[32], I feel the record label is sufficiently notable to count for WP:BAND criterion #5.--Michig (talk) 21:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The individual is highly regarded in the rarefied field of classical accordion in North America, and publishes what is probably the most comprehensive website for accordions and other free-reed instruments. Thus, he is particularly notable as far as players of this instrument in the classical field goes. Badagnani (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep—Passes WP:N, meaning it passes WP:MUSIC criterion #1. I just added a reference to an article about him in the Post-Tribune and there are plenty more. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The three sources above do not meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources nor do they establish WP:N. One album on an independent label (not a major label), does not make for an article. Also, sources must be reliable, not websites with little or no reputation. This article is still an advertisement. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - No, in fact several of the albums are on independent labels (however much you may hope or wish that they are not). This was pointed out just above, so it seems that you are not only not carefully reading the article or notability guidelines, but in fact this very discussion. Badagnani (talk) 22:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He has one foot in academia with another in music and is a writer. I don't think that he can be specifically excluded by any of the subject specific criteria since no single guideline has specific purview. However, he does seem to meet the WP:N guideline of being noticed in independent sources. Yes there is no one compelling source, but there are enough sources to convince me. On the other hand I'm not impressed by the article, which should be trimmed substantially. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Update—I have added citations to two articles about him in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, and two articles about him in the Post-Tribune, one of which mentions his first-place prize in the American Accordion Musicological Society solo competition. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - But trim down to relevant information only as per Michig's comment above. I have gone ahead and removed the ebay link and some other comments as a start. Gouranga(UK) (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep and close - looks like a bad faith AfD. Article says: "He has performed on accordion with cellist Mstislav Rostropovich, violinists Gil Shaham and Itzhak Perlman during concerts": for a guy like me with no clue about classical, to share a stage with those names reeks highly of notability. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete its obvious, a self promotion that does not adhere to NPOV and Notability guides.Wikidās 21:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Simply writing one line and hoping he doesn't meet the notability guidelines really isn't satisfactory. The multiple CDs belie your comment. It's important to ascribe good faith to other editors, but in this case your comment stretches this guideline quite to the brink. Badagnani (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ,notability has not been established. Davewild (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Squerrik[edit]

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

No assertion of notability, no secondary sources; tagged for improvement for a while with no changes. Black Kite 18:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not a notable fictional character; may have marginal importance in universe but none outside it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Had this been prodded, it most likely wouldn't be here.B.Wind (talk) 05:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gaknulak[edit]

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

No assertion of independent notability, unsourced, has been tagged for six months without improvement. Already mentioned in passing at Kobold (Dungeons & Dragons), which is probably as much as it needs. Black Kite 18:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Had this been prodded, it wouldn't be here now. B.Wind (talk) 05:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 10:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theater of the Mind[edit]

Theater of the Mind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced; no information available about the album Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 18:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL; no verifiable info yet exists on this album. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CBALL. I'm surprised this has been around since 2006. Spellcast (talk) 02:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This shouldn't be deleted. If it isn't an album, what's with the song "Down In Tha Dirty"?Y5nthon5a (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears here: Strength in Numbers (Disturbing tha Peace album) --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 00:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh okay lol. Yeah, get rid of this page.Y5nthon5a (talk) 01:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:CRYSTAL strikes again. B.Wind (talk) 05:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I find the rationale of the delete voters to be stronger than the keep voters. Wizardman 17:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missouri Students Association[edit]

Missouri Students Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Local student government organization. No WP:Reliable Sources. No assertion of WP:Notability. RedShiftPA (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —RedShiftPA (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Inherently notable. Wikipedia has no deadline. GreenJoe 18:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please cite the guideline which states that it is inherently notable simply for existing. --Dhartung | Talk 21:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - a plainly inaccurate statement. TerriersFan (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it.". - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 02:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: SUs are not inherently notable. Although many sources exist on Google etc, none are reliable. 95% of all sourced material comes from the UM Maneater, which is not reliable or secondary to the org itself.—Noetic Sage 18:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As for reliability and independence, the student newspaper mentioned is not published by the student union itself. The Maneaster's web site states: "The Maneater is the official student newspaper of the University of Missouri - Columbia and is a student organization that operates independently from the student government, the School of Journalism and any other campus entity." Independent student newspapers should be regarded as reliable sources unless there is evidence to the contrary. --Eastmain (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The Maneater may be considered secondary to the organization, but it is not secondary to the university. Even so, it is not reliable because it does not have a history of fact-checking and accuracy, much like many professional publications such as the New York Post and shoddy website news organizations.—Noetic Sage 19:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Noetic Sage.--Michael White^T·C 21:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - student bodies have to meet WP:ORG. This requires significant secondary sources. This page hasn't them and thus clearly fails notability standards. TerriersFan (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the article has a reasonable amount of information, I don't see any need to delete it. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (trimmed) to the university's article. Paddy Simcox (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Apparently every article I have written for Wikipedia is up for deletion. Guess my membership will be up for deletion next. BCV (talk) 01:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepPage is sourced with sources independent from the organization, notability is not clearly defined but the organization has a budget of over a million dollars, which is a pretty good indication of probable notability.-Grey Wanderer | Talk 15:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - just another student gov.; non-notable, no meaningful sourcing. These bodies are unknown ten feet off university property. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The first-order major components of a major university are notable. DCV, please do not be concerned if it does get deleted. Given the existence of Deletionpedia, as mentioned at [33] you will be rather easily able to restore this article when consensus changes back again to realising that the organisation representing the undergraduate students at a major university is sufficiently notable to have an article, under which is newspaper, radio stations, and so oncan be grouped into sections.DGG (talk) 23:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, purely local, what the heck is a first-order component? Lord Uniscorn (talk) 11:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the main University article unless it is significantly expanded with information regarding all of the groups and events that fall under this umbrella organization. BlueGold73 (talk) 17:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep http://news.google.com/news?sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS251US252&um=1&tab=wn&hl=en&q=%22Missouri+Students+Association&btnG=Search+News shows enough notability (including some not from the school paper). I'd go with merge, but WP:size prevents any merger I can see. Hobit (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - lack of citations to reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 23:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Associated Students of the University of Missouri[edit]

Associated Students of the University of Missouri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Local student government organization. No WP:Reliable Sources. No assertion of WP:Notability. RedShiftPA (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —RedShiftPA (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Inherently notable. Wikipedia has no deadline. GreenJoe 18:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please cite the guideline which states that it is inherently notable simply for existing. --Dhartung | Talk 21:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - an inaccurate statement; absolutely no basis for claiming inherent notability. TerriersFan (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it.". - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 02:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Not inherently notable, but some reliable sources do exist that should be cited. This org is not local in scope, and instead legislates on a state level.—Noetic Sage 18:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - they do not legislate at all. This is a passing mention where the body is quoted as commenting on someone else's legislation. What is needed is a substantial source on the body as an entity and none have been produced. TerriersFan (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - only trivial coverage.--Michael White^T·C 21:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - student bodies have to meet WP:ORG. This requires significant secondary sources. This page hasn't them and thus clearly fails notability standards. TerriersFan (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:ORG. Paddy Simcox (talk) 23:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, local. Lord Uniscorn (talk) 11:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it's not local. The ASUM keeps a representative at the state's dept of education. This is unique and has been picked up on by several newspapers nationally: [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]. The ASUM is also mentioned in a published paper regarding the history of the Missouri Library system [41]. Do I really need more?
  • Yes, you need to not misrepresent a bunch of Missouri papers as national. Lord Uniscorn (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • One of them is from Texas. And newspapers all across Missouri covering it are good enough anyway. There's a large difference between being local and being state-wide. Oren0 (talk) 04:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep as a suitable place for merging aditional material, though the present content is not vvery etensive. Sources seem to be present. DGG (talk) 01:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - lack of citations to reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Syracuse University & SUNY-ESF Student Association[edit]

Syracuse University & SUNY-ESF Student Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Local student government organization. No WP:Reliable Sources. No assertion of WP:Notability. RedShiftPA (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —RedShiftPA (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Inherently notable. Wikipedia has no deadline. GreenJoe 18:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please cite the guideline which states that it is inherently notable simply for existing. --Dhartung | Talk 21:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - a statement with no basis in policy. TerriersFan (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This is just another "assumption" being played in by the attempted establishment of "WikiProject Student Unions", which is not a WikiProject, does not solve any debates on the notability of student unions at all, does not provide any kind of policy in existence that points SUs are notable, and is another one of those "This is notable because I said so" attempts. Sorry, no offense, but by using the same non-guideline excuse in attempt to outweigh the several guidelines and policies on Wikipedia is... (I'll keep the rest of that sentence to myself...you can pretty much finish the sentence for me.) *sigh* - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 01:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Clarified Comment "This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it.". - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 02:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: SUs are not inherently notable, and this article specifically lacks notability because it is local in scope and has only trivial mention in reliable sources. There are a few mentions in local Syracuse newspapers, but I don't think that is enough to satisfy WP:ORG.—Noetic Sage 18:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no evidence of notability outside the SU area, therefore failing WP:ORG for local organizations. SU's are not inherently notable and c/ping the same rationale does not make them so. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator did the exact same thing copying & pasting a rationale. GreenJoe 18:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And you're canvassing (among other locations). Point? None of these discussions have or will be clean. Arguments should be made in policy TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 20:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Apparently you're Wikistalking. GreenJoe 20:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nope you've just done it on at least two pages that are on my watchlist. I'm sick of these pointless debates that end up with about 1/3 delete, 1/3 no consensus and 1/3 keep. Not a productive use of my time which was why I chose to comment here and not on the other ton listed here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities/Deletion#16 March (AfD, CfD, TfD). I'd rather do contructive work than endless circular arguments that don't get anywhere. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 21:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is not Wikistalking. If you review Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities/Deletion, you'll see every single AfD, including, but not limited to AfDs you may or may not have participated (in voting keep because of the Wikipedia does not have a deadline thingy). This page lets you view every single request, every single vote, comment, and result realtime, which does not require a user to stalk your contrib list to make a point. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 01:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. References are non-trivial and enough to establish notability. --Eastmain (talk) 19:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no non-trivial references.--Michael White^T·C 21:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - student bodies have to meet WP:ORG. This requires significant secondary sources. This page hasn't them and thus clearly fails notability standards. TerriersFan (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:ORG. Page is a billboard for non-notable alumni of the school to brag. Paddy Simcox (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom & failure of WP:ORG. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 01:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This whole article looks like a copy/paste from the organizations website. Beyond that, there's just not enough to merge. Lovelac7 03:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as we are supposed to do when notability is borderline.DGG (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - lack of media coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus defaulting to Keep, disagreement over notability. Davewild (talk) 14:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G-Log[edit]

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

No citations or references on notability. Company no longer exists since Nov 2005 - you'd imagine that anything notable would have been merged with Oracle article by now. Bardcom (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Redirect – As mentioned by the nominator – all relevant information has been incorporated into the Oracle piece. Shoessss |  Chat  18:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if the original company was notable before Oracle acquired it, it remains notable. Notability is permanent. The total information from this article that was actually incorporated into the Oracle Corporation article is: G-Log September 2005 Transportation Management Solutions N/A That wasn't a "merge," it was a "delete almost everything and merge." DGG (talk) 02:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. OK, I have restructured the page which was a mess. As DGG says the content wasn't merged. I also agree that a merged company retains its notability. My problem is that I am not particularly convinced that the company was notable. However, in marginal cases we should default to keep. BlueValour (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Still no references to notability though. Google throws out the usual amount of press releases, but I can't find anything notable. Have you had any luck? Anybody? Bardcom (talk) 01:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - there are significant endorsements here and here. Just about enough for a keep IMHO. BlueValour (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota State College Student Association[edit]

Minnesota State College Student Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Local student organization. No WP:Reliable Sources. No assertion of WP:Notability. RedShiftPA (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —RedShiftPA (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Inherently notable. Wikipedia has no deadline. GreenJoe 18:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please cite the guideline which states that it is inherently notable simply for existing. --Dhartung | Talk 21:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it.". - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Not inherently notable, but a few reliable sources do exist.—Noetic Sage 18:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - only trivial coverage.--Michael White^T·C 21:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:ORG wants the activities of the org to be national in scope. The sources provided are clearly local, and trivial to boot. Paddy Simcox (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'd prefer to merge it, but there's no parent organization to merge to. Lovelac7 03:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: the news results presented above are good enough to satisfy WP:N. Oren0 (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The "local" applies to local branches of an organisation, which are almost always non-notable. This particular article is about a statewide agency, transcending any particular college, and is a suitable place to put paragraphs about the parts in the indiviual colleges, instead of trying to write articles about each of them. A good compromise. DGG (talk) 01:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Needs to beef up source list. Otherwise it's a marginally notable subject. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - lack of media coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:ORG due to total lack of independent sources. The article includes no assertion of notability and none has been produced despite a long AFD. BlueValour (talk) 04:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rjd0060 (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Associated Students of the University of Washington[edit]

Associated Students of the University of Washington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Local student government organization. No WP:Reliable Sources. No assertion of WP:Notability. Plenty of WP:Original Research. Merge to main page contested. RedShiftPA (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —RedShiftPA (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Inherently notable. Wikipedia has no deadline. GreenJoe 18:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please cite the guideline which states that it is inherently notable simply for existing. --Dhartung | Talk 21:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it.". - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Not inherently notable, but ASUW still has a number of reliable sources that have yet to be included. They were also involved in Washington State Supreme Court case GOOD v. ASSOCIATED STUDENTS.—Noetic Sage 18:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the first and third results on the link Noetic Sage provided establish notability - involved in Washington Supreme Court Case, recognized by Washington State as a historical "Century Corporation."--Michael White^T·C 21:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, for whatever reason, this one has attracted national recognition. Paddy Simcox (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. This student government may be notable, but the article has no sources. I suggest merging it into the parent article. If, at some future point, the subject is well-sourced and long enough to stand on its own, it can once more be spun off into an independent article. Lovelac7 02:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Adequate sourcing, enough encyclopedic information, good editing as a merge for other information.DGG (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This SU actually has reliable sources as mentioned by NoeticSage's Google News search link (esp the supreme court case). - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete; merges and/or redirects can be discussed on the article talk page. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

University of California Students Association[edit]

University of California Students Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Local student government organization. No WP:Reliable Sources. No assertion of WP:Notability. Merge to main page contested. RedShiftPA (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —RedShiftPA (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I agree that there are no reliable sources found in the article itself, but it appears that there are a number of quality sources out there which have yet to be utilized. This organization seems to be notable enough to satisfy WP:ORG because it a) is not local in scope b) is referred to in over 170 news articles and c) has legitimate legislative and governmental purposes (i.e. the org doesn't have merely trivial coverage).—Noetic Sage 17:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I am not seeing any reliable sources commenting on the body as an entity. TerriersFan (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per Noeticsage. Amerique^dialectics 17:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Inherently notable. Wikipedia has no deadline. GreenJoe 18:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC) To expand on my keep, this is the largest SA in the state. They directly lobby to the legislature. They represent a huge number of students. GreenJoe 00:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please cite the guideline which states that it is inherently notable simply for existing. --Dhartung | Talk 21:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - obviously no basis for this claim. TerriersFan (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it.". - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I'm not seeing any non-trivial coverage.--Michael White^T·C 21:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - student bodies have to meet WP:ORG. This requires significant secondary sources. This page hasn't them and thus clearly fails notability standards. TerriersFan (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, without the list, to University of California. Although that article is long, a couple of more sentences won't hurt. This is an umbrella organization, and deserves a mention because people might not suspect that it exists, unlike the ubiquitous student governments every university has. Paddy Simcox (talk) 23:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (or if delete, then merge+redirect) as per User:Noeticsage in addition to other sources that I'm probably gathering a list for this one in a little bit to establish better notability. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 01:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to University of California per Paddy Simcox. Lovelac7 04:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There seems to be some failure to discriminate between those students clubs that have no particular genreal interest, and the student organisations which represent what is in practice the major division of a university. Have all of us here who have gone through college ignored everything but the classwork?DGG (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I was a member of one of the graduate student sub-organizations of this organization. We had a couple of meetings, ordered pizza and debated the toppings. We sent a representative up to the main meeting, the decision was based on somebody wanting to visit their parents. Lord Uniscorn (talk) 11:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - lack of media coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to University of California. There are no real sources within the article, and the content is such that it can just be quietly pointed to the main UC article until someone wants to take the time to develop an actual article. (jarbarf) (talk) 02:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per (jarbarf) and add a sentence mentioning it to the article. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, although tending to keep. Bduke (talk) 08:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Georgetown University Student Association[edit]

Georgetown University Student Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Local student government organization. No WP:Reliable Sources beyond university paper. No assertion of WP:Notability. Merge to main page contested. RedShiftPA (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —RedShiftPA (talk) 17:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Inherently notable. Wikipedia has no deadline. GreenJoe 18:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please cite the guideline which states that it is inherently notable simply for existing. --Dhartung | Talk 21:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - obviously false statement. TerriersFan (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it.". - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Although much of the article needs to be edited (e.g. the individual students mentioned), the organization satisfies WP:ORG because it is mentioned a number of times in reliable sources like the Washington Post. These need to be integrated into the article, but it is notable.—Noetic Sage 18:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - no sources include a substantial review of the body. TerriersFan (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no non-trivial coverage in independent sources.--Michael White^T·C 21:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - student bodies have to meet WP:ORG. This requires significant secondary sources. This page hasn't them and thus clearly fails notability standards. TerriersFan (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, this one has some claim to fame, since now notable politicians were involved with it. I would change my not-vote to keep if one source were provided that said the Association was responsible for their later success (rather than the University). Paddy Simcox (talk) 23:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Noetic Sage
• Delete - trivial media coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sorry I couldn't contribute to this discussion earlier, was on vacation in real life. First off, this should never have been a deletion discussion and this page should not exist. This is a merger discussion, and should have been kept to the talk page. This should be a speedy keep on that basis. Second, I fiercely oppose a merger to Georgetown University, which I spent over a year making a featured article, and would hate to see trashed by an section that clearly deserves its own article. From WP:DEL#REASON, I note that "all attempts" have not failed, and I did find and cite portions of the article with my own, and also User:Noeticsage's secondaries. Additionally, university papers have been found to be acceptable external sources by director Raul654, as I dealt with the issue in Georgetown's FAC. Despite the current campaign of one user against such articles, other student unions have been found notable, so non-notability is not an innate attribute of such organizations. And a former US president was involved in this organization.--Patrick Ѻ 00:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]