< May 9	May 11 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Blueboy 96 17:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paradiso Girls[edit]

Claims a couple notable members but really no reliable sources. Only sources cited are YouTube and MySpace and fansites. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until such a time as the contents of the article can be WP:verified through the use of WP:reliable sources. -- saberwyn 01:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Of course the group is an upcoming one but several of its members are known and the group has been dealt with a lot in fans community. All statements are sourced. They even have a song out now. I'd say keep for now and see where this goes. At least wait until the album comes out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siemgi (talk • contribs) 00:10, May 6, 2008
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Babiiblooma4eva*Keep.I think that this shouldn't be deleted because i don't see how it interferes with the rules. Really. Maybe the person that nominated this to be deleted just doesn't like the Paradiso Girls or something. They have an album and a song. Keep it until we see what else is added on — Preceding comment was added at 01:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep Everything is sourced apart from the songlist. I think the songlist should be deleted for now, but keep the info on the band, definitely. 128.232.250.213 (talk) 13:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp (talk) 23:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. They haven't even released their first album yet. May or may not be notable in the future, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Fails WP:MUSIC. Fails WP:RS, WP:V and WP:N. I am also influenced by the complete lack of ghits on google news[1]! --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence, by references to reliable sources, has been produced that the band satisfies WP:MUSIC. The references in the article are to fansites, which do not pass WP:RS. Keep proponents are making general WP:ILIKEIT arguments. Nsk92 (talk) 01:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. Could become notable in the future, but they aren't now. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Netumbo Amoya[edit]

In mid-January, a spate of new articles were created by Hporion and Encephalon2 relating to Mozambique football. One of them also created an obviously fake article about a Japanese football team, which I PROD'd and has since been deleted. Info about most of the pages created by this duo is hard to come by; however, history at RSSSF shows that some of the teams did at one point exist, and performed well. In the face of the obvious troll wrt Japanese teams, I'm struggling with how to treat the entirety of these contributions. Two similar articles were deleted in January at AFD; but, the fact that a few of the articles have a basis in truth seems to forbid a blanket deletion. For these three, the team they allegedly play for may have been in the top-level several years back, but, it looks like they are not now, and per the WP:FOOTY guidelines, playing for the team currently in a lower division does not meet the requirements for inclusion. I am also nominating the following related pages: Neier (talk) 11:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm a little confused by the chronology here. These players joined the team after it was demoted to a lower division? — Quasirandom (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like most of the team pages created are in the 2nd division (non-English PDF link. I have no idea if they are fully professional or not, but, AFAIK even the non-fullpro teams which play in a nation's top-level league still pass the criteria here. Some of the team pages created were at one time in the top division, but, scanning RSSSF in more detail, I can't see where Catedral de Quelimane (misnamed as Catedral Quelimane on the players' pages) has been in the top division since 1990, if at all. Neier (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp (talk) 23:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, no reason to keep these articles. Punkmorten (talk) 10:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no verifable notability here. A luta continua... Ecoleetage (talk) 02:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - all of the articles' subjects fail WP:N --Angelo (talk) 09:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - fail notability. Giant Snowman 22:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Implausible search term for a redirect, therefore not redirecting. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All-Round Athletics[edit]

I stumbled across this while doing athlete disambiguation work... seems like WP:OR, although EB is "cited". Any relevant information can me added to athlete, although there's not much here that's not already there. Tan | 39 18:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 21:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This isn't the OR of a Wikipedia editor. The article is indeed taken entirely from the 1910 Britannica [2]. Still, it's probably unnecessary, since we have individual articles on the pentathlon, decathlon, etc. Zagalejo^^^ 22:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp (talk) 23:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Athletics. MBisanz ^talk 19:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. Quercus basaseachicensis (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 19:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UltimateIRCd[edit]

Not notable,no real content, no benifit Shrill ville (talk) 21:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can see how difficult it would be to establish notability for a now obsolete IRC daemon, but this article doesn't make any attempt to do so. — scetoaux (T|C) 23:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp (talk) 23:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not even notable in a historical context. Merenta (talk) 02:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. DS (talk) 18:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy "Biggs" Soper[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. Unverifiable and no significant coverage in reliable source. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacking in support by sources of any type, let alone reliable ones. While I am not as hasty as another in stating the article being a possible hoax, I saw nothing that supports the information in the first place. B.Wind (talk) 02:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp (talk) 23:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources of any kind. Fails WP:V, not to mention WP:BIO. A plain Google search gives only 5 hits[3]. Hoax or not, not notable and not verifiable and should be deleted. Nsk92 (talk) 01:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I also could not find sources (in addition to Google, I tried Academic Search Complete). Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was articled nixed o'er. DS (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kat Nixoer[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. Google search shows only 13 ghits outside wikipedia [4], no hint in google book search [5]. No significant coverage in reliable source. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp (talk) 23:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My guess is this is a hoax, if she really starred in all those TV shows from 2000 to the present she would have more than 13 web hits. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Almost certainly a hoax. No record in IMDb[6]. The first show where she was supposed to star in does not exist either[7]. Nsk92 (talk) 01:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I also was unable to find sources. Thus, it is indeed likely false. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 19:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matieland![edit]

No indication that this film is notable. IMDB is not a reliable source, and I speedied the director as WP:CSD#A7. Sandstein (talk) 11:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, movie isn't even on imdb, as a result it's borderline speedyable. Wizardman 22:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp (talk) 23:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete— Non-notable film; As far as notability goes, a movie should at least be on IMDB, which isn't to say that if it isn't, it's automatically nn, but this film seems to fail the test, so it should be deleted. Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 23:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability anywhere. The only reference I could find is a passing one-sentence mention in the book "New Dictionary of South African Biography" [8]. Certainly not enough to pass WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 01:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete; default to KEEP. - Philippe 21:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vivian Sørmeland[edit]

Idol fancruft.. subject of trivial coverage, 15 minutes of fame. Punkmorten (talk) 10:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Coming third doesn't confer notability, nor does being a winner's girlfriend. JohnCD (talk) 10:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, came in 3rd in a contest, patently non-encyclopedic. KleenupKrew (talk) 13:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep However much I would like to see this article disappear, she is still notable, per WP:N. A search on Sesam (see [9]) privides 688 hits, just in news search. Just the fact that she broke up with her boyfriend seemed to get media coverage in every large and small newspaper nationwide. Of course, someone should add some of these references in the article to prove notability, unless they want this article to be deleted. Arsenikk (talk) 12:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp (talk) 23:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. GoogleNews returns only 4 hits[10]. None are in English, so I don't know what they actually say. The Sesam hits are in Norwegian as well, I can't tell what they are about. Per WP:RSUE, verifiable translations of at least some of these would have to be provided to establish notability per WP:BIO or WP:N. If someone is willing to do that, there will be something to discuss. If not, delete. Nsk92 (talk) 01:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable contestant with verifiable information. Sincerley, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources have been shown to exist, and the fact that they are not in English is totally irrelevant. Many source are not available to all readers because they are only available in libraries in certain parts of the world, or for many other reasons, but we don't insist that direct quotations should be provided in these cases, so why do so when the reason for non-accessability by everyone is that they are not in English? The need to provide quotations with translations was a recent change to WP:RSUE which is severely damaging to English Wikipedia's mission as an Encyclopedia covering the whole world. English is simply the language in which the encyclopedia is written, not the language in which sources have to be. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree regarding WP:RSUE. It is an important part of WP:V and goes directly to verifiability. How else are we supposed to know what the sources say when they are cited to justify some claim? In any event, WP:V is a core WP policy and should not be easily ignored. Nsk92 (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No, I dont read Norwegian, but I can still decipher enough of the content of the references to tell that a/ it is a major newspaper and a RS. and b/that there are multiple feature articles in it about this person. Just what they say is harder to tell, though certainly it can be seen that its about the show. That's enough to say that It does seem to be important in its own country. I consider that a deplorable state of affairs, just as with this show everywhere else, but that's the way it is. DGG (talk) 23:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems like it has sources and she has notability. Miami33139 (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BLP1E Quercus basaseachicensis (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a general consensus not to outright delete. There is also a strong feeling that a "List of characters..." article, with the contents of the character articles merged to it (along with redirects of the character's names) may be more appropriate. That's for the talkpages, not AfD. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seppo Taalasmaa[edit]

Article about a fictional character of a soap opera. It has no real world information. It fails guidelines for WP:SOAPS Magioladitis (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Magioladitis (talk) 21:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE - The nom is attempting to delete every character article of the popular Finnish TV show Salatut elämät. --Oakshade (talk) 03:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Consensus has long since decided fictional character articles, including in soap operas, can be included. Major character in long running national soap opera. WikiProject Soap Operas (WP:SOAPS) is not a notability guideline, but a project improvement page and in no manner mandates article deletions. If you feel the article should be improved, a wiki-improvement tag is more appropriate, not article deletion.--Oakshade (talk) 03:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions.
Comment The list of characters can be converted to something like the List of Family Affairs characters. Separate articles cannot be supported without any real world information. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless multiple reliable secondary sources can be found to demonstrate notability and to make the article verifiable. Some WP:PLOT concerns also. Jakew (talk) 19:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep or Merge or redirect, depending on the importance of the character, but since a character might be a search term, the one thing that should not be done is delete. Spin out for major characters is still acceptable- I would like to see evidence first that someone with access to Finnish language sources has at least looked for them. DGG (talk) 00:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my previous comment. Eusebeus (talk) 13:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the nominator would have done better to include all these Salatut elämät characters into one nomination. I can certainly see how this article could be merged into a List of Salatut elämät characters so deletion does not appear to be an option. The sentence " He is played by Jarmo Koski." actually is real world information. And non-Wikiproject Soap Opera members are under no obligation to follow whatever SOAPS says. --Pixelface (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is like opposing an episode article to be merged because it states that this is the fifth episode of the series, so it contains real world information. I think I should write contains no real world information but trivial which it is already found in the list of characters article. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The character has appeared on one of the most popular TV series of Finland for nine years as one of it's main characters. Definitely notable. ,,n (talk) 04:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Finnish TV show so sources exist mostly in foreign language, like this The TV series is popular so Wikipedia needs to cover the characters also. Merge to a list of characters may be considered later, but that requires a keep anyway. --PeaceNT (talk) 15:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp (talk) 23:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with that: The soap is notable. I didn't Afd the soap! That the soap is notable doesn't imply that each individual character is notable! It's exactly like episodes and TV series. A soap it's much more that its characters. This is another reason I didn't make a group Afd.-- Magioladitis (talk) 00:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

but the first step is to figure out which is the important ones--I recognize your reasonable intentions, why don't you try suggesting a merge without loss of content. Myself, I don;t like the genre much, but to the extent they are interesting at all, it is primarily in terms of the recurring characters--opinions will vary here, so the solution is to treat all aspects well,poor more exactly to let others do so. DGG (talk) 02:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The creation of a good List of characters article containing all biographies of the 6 characters would be something useful. I agree with that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If here were articles about clearly less notable Salkkarit characters with much shorter tenure, I could very well vote for deletion. But here in English Wikipedia are only eight articles about characters of this show and in my opinion all of those eight are among the most important characters of the series. Elina, Kari, Seppo, Ulla, Ismo, Jenni and Laura were part of the original group of characters and Aaro, although the character had shorter tenure, is notable as probably the most well-known villain character of the show. ,,n (talk) 21:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. See rationale and suggestions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seppo Taalasmaa. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ulla Taalasmaa[edit]

Article about a fictional character of a soap opera. It has no real world information. It fails guidelines for WP:SOAPS. My prod was reverted as " minor edit" without any explanation. Magioladitis (talk) 16:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Magioladitis (talk) 21:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE - The nom is attempting to delete every character article of the popular Finnish TV show Salatut elämät.--Oakshade (talk) 03:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)--Oakshade (talk) 03:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Consensus has long since decided fictional character articles, including in soap operas, can be included. Major character in long running national soap opera. WikiProject Soap Operas (WP:SOAPS) is not a notability guideline, but a project improvement page and in no manner mandates article deletions. If you feel the article should be improved, a wiki-improvement tag is more appropriate, not article deletion.--Oakshade (talk) 03:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions.
Comment The list of characters can be converted to something like the List of Family Affairs characters. Separate articles cannot be supported without any real world information. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless multiple reliable secondary sources can be found to demonstrate notability and to make the article verifiable. Article also lacks out-of-universe information needed to satisfy WP:PLOT. Jakew (talk) 19:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep or Merge or redirect, depending on the importance of the character, but since a character might be a search term, the one thing that should not be done is delete. Spin out for major characters is still acceptable-- WP:SOAPS is only a project. I would like to see evidence first that soeone with access to Finnish language sources has at least looked for them. DGG (talk) 00:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my previous comment. Eusebeus (talk) 13:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

actually, each afd debate here stands on its own. DGG (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the nominator does not give a valid reason for deletion. The sentence "She was played by Maija-Liisa Peuhu and appeared as a regular character in the series from 1999–2007." actually is real world information. I don't see how this article "fails" SOAPS. And I have to question why the nominator decided to put prod tags on every character article related to Salatut elämät saying "Fails notability per WP:FICTION" when WP:FICTION is simply a proposal. --Pixelface (talk) 15:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is like opposing an episode article to be merged because it states that this is the fifth episode of the series, so it contains real world information. I think I should write contains no real world information but trivial which it is already found in the list of characters article. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Finnish TV show so sources exist mostly in foreign language, like this The TV series is popular so Wikipedia needs to cover the characters also. Merge to a list of characters may be considered later, but that requires a keep anyway. --PeaceNT (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp (talk) 23:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with that: The soap is notable. I didn't Afd the soap! That the soap is notable doesn't imply that each individual character is notable! It's exactly like episodes and TV series. A soap it's much more that its characters. This is another reason I didn't make a group Afd.-- Magioladitis (talk) 00:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 See rationale and suggestions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seppo Taalasmaa. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kari Taalasmaa[edit]

Article about a fictional character of a soap opera. It has no real world information. It fails guidelines for WP:SOAPS. I prodded the article for deletion but my edit was reverted as "minor edit" without any explanation. Magioladitis (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Magioladitis (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE - The nom is attempting to delete every character article of the popular Finnish TV show Salatut elämät.--Oakshade (talk) 03:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Consensus has long since decided fictional character articles, including in soap operas, can be included. Major character in long running national soap opera. WikiProject Soap Operas (WP:SOAPS) is not a notability guideline, but a project improvement page and in no manner mandates article deletions. If you feel the article should be improved, a wiki-improvement tag is more appropriate, not article deletion. --Oakshade (talk) 03:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless multiple reliable secondary sources can be found to demonstrate notability and to make the article verifiable. Jakew (talk) 19:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep or Merge or redirect, depending on the importance of the character, but since a character might be a search term, the one thing that should not be done is delete. Spin out for major characters is still acceptable-- WP:SOAPS is only a project. I would like to see evidence first that someone with access to Finnish language sources has at least looked for them. DGG (talk) 00:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my previous comment. Eusebeus (talk) 13:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there is no real world information policy. Failing a WikiProject guideline is not a reason for deletion. Those are decided upon members of that particular WikiProject. --Pixelface (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The character has appeared on one of the most popular TV series of Finland for about six years as one of the main characters. ,,n (talk) 03:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What about expaning the List of characters article then by merging all the individual articles there by deleting the plot summaries? -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp (talk) 23:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 See rationale and suggestions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seppo Taalasmaa. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elina Taalasmaa[edit]

Article about a fictional character of a soap opera. It has no real world information. It fails guidelines for WP:SOAPS Magioladitis (talk) 16:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Magioladitis (talk) 21:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE - The nom is attempting to delete every character article of the popular Finnish TV show Salatut elämät.-Oakshade (talk) 03:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a summary onto List of actors on Salatut elämät.—RJH (talk) 01:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Consensus has long since decided fictional character articles, including in soap operas, can be included. Major character in long running national soap opera. WikiProject Soap Operas (WP:SOAPS) is not a notability guideline, but a project improvement page and in no manner mandates article deletions. If you feel the article should be improved, a wiki-improvement tag is more appropriate, not article deletion. There's too much subject specific information here to merge.--Oakshade (talk) 03:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I disagree Oakshade. Those aspects of WP:FICT which expand upon WP:NOT#PLOT are essentially an extension of consensus policy. There is general agreement that purely ((in-universe)) content is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Eusebeus (talk) 13:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions.
Comment The list of characters can be converted to something like the List of Family Affairs characters. Separate articles cannot be supported without any real world information. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PLOT (too little real-world context) and WP:N and WP:V (multiple independent secondary sources giving significant coverage are needed to demonstrate notability and to allow the reader to verify the content). Jakew (talk) 19:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep or Merge or redirect, depending on the importance of the character, but since a character might be a search term, the one thing that should not be done is delete. Spin out for major characters is still acceptable-- WP:SOAPS is only a project. I would like to see evidence first that someone with access to Finnish language sources has at least looked for them. DGG (talk) 00:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the character appeared on the show for 9 years. I'm not sure exactly what part of WP:SOAPS this article fails. Even if this article did fail parts of WP:SOAPS, it's a guideline for a WikiProject, not Wikipedia as a whole. What real world information do you want the article to have? --Pixelface (talk) 15:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jakew. His rationale is virtually the same as mine. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pixelface. ,,n (talk) 15:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp (talk) 23:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g3, vandalism. NawlinWiki (talk) 00:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey Cosgrove[edit]

Unsourced/unreferenced article on person where none of the substantive assertions made in the article can be verified. The generally unencylopedic style aside, this article seems to be either a hoax or possibly just a misfiring joke but either way, the article shouldn't be here. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. It looks like the article creator took a biography of a historical figure and inserted the real name and some biographical data of a real contemporary person, along with some jokes. The result is an unsourced biography of a living person which looks like something completely inappropriate for this encyclopedia and an attack page on the contemporary person. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, and the article has been tagged by someone for speedy deletion as an attack article. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --John (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wounds (band)[edit]

Absolutely no content about the band, just a discography composed of three demos, a promo, and one studio album. No proof that they were on a major label or that they charted any singles. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable band (as defined by WP:MUSIC). A google search turns up nothing related to this band, only a few minor references to a finnish band of a similar name. Bfigura ^(talk) 00:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, this article is about the Finnish band. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I appear to have misread a source. The other band I was referring to,Exit Wounds, isn't finnish, unlike this band. --Bfigura ^(talk) 02:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dido's third studio album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The only source available for this is a bizarre link through a numeric IP address. Her website that was "relaunched to coincide with the release" is a big banner that says "Coming Soon". No sources, no title: pure crystal ballism. Kww (talk) 22:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No proof that the album exists. WP:CRYSTAL indeed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Dido main article, until something is actually released. ~~And just a note that the AfD tag on the page leads to the first AfD for this article, not this one.~~ fixed. Beeblbrox (talk) 23:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The bizarre link was a Google cache of direct-current.net. I've fixed the link to point to the site, but I can't find the article that appeared to be referenced - the site appears to delete old content. While I can take it on faith that there was at some point a mention of the album on that site, one mention that an album is coming doesn't cut it for an article, particularly when neither a title nor any information about the content is forthcoming. (In general, titles like "So-And-So's Nth studio album" are a bad sign. Most popular musicians exist in one of three states: touring, working on an album, and retired. The fact that an album is in the works isn't itself articleworthy.) Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:CRYSTAL. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all X's #th album/single/tour as inherent violations of WP:CBALL. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too Many Lovers[edit]

Doesn't seem to be a notable flim. Director and most of the cast are red links, and there seem to be virtually no sources asserting this film's notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I normally don't go delete on any film article where the film has been released, but this one is just too far below the radar. The only signs of its existance at all are one or two extremely brief listings in the usual film directories (IMDB, MSN movies, et al). I don't see any sign of any reviews or other sources that could help it be anything more than it is now, which is basically a copy of the IMDB info. Just not enough notability for inclusion.Collectonian (talk) 14:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Quercus basaseachicensis (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 do anything, really. What a mess. My first reaction after reading the participators' comments here is that these really should be listed separately, as the articles are not even about the same franchise/show and some confusion is apparent in the comments. There is no strong consensus to delete any of them, but the strongest case of deletion is made for List of Guests on Late Night with Conan O'Brien. That one should be relisted. The consensus on the first two is leaning towards keeping, but I wouldn't be opposed to a new, separate nomination for either of them. For now, marking #1 (Sketches) and #2 (Headlines) as keep (and clean), and I'm marking "List of guests" as no consensus/relist. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sketches from Late Night with Conan O'Brien[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Sketches from Late Night with Conan O'Brien

Fancruft article, non-encyclopedic. Also nominating the following related pages for similar reasons. "Headlines" and "List of Guests on Late Night with Conan O'Brien" also fancruft.

Delete all Unsourced fancruft, indiscriminate info. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not an encyclopedia article. Just a list of descriptions of TV sketches. No information given on why they are important. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist separately. I think at least the first two could be salvaged, with some effort. Let people judge each of them separately. And come up with stronger deletion arguments. It's simplistic to just say, "Cruft, unencylopedic," especially when independent sources do exist to verify much of this content (see this New York Times article on the Horny Manatee, for starters). Zagalejo^^^ 03:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I don't think this list as a separate article should exist. Some of the sketches like you said are notable. Like Triumph The Insult Comic Dog. But the list itself shouldn't have its own article IMO. At best merge it back into the article about the show. -- Coasttocoast (talk) 04:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the first two, Neutral on the third. These seem valid as articles, but they badly need cleaned up. The first needs sourced better, with unsourced entries removed. The second is deserving of an article but is almost entirely synthesis; cut it down to remove these. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the Headlines piece and list the merged segment on the dab page for "Headlines." The "Headlines" segment on Tonight has become quite notable in its own right, but I wouldn't have a problem with it being folded into a section of the article on the show, so long as there existed a redirect to alert people who are looking for it (as I was, just now) to the right place for info.Lawikitejana (talk) 16:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the "Sketches on Conan" article (see also Sketches on Letterman for a precedent), Merge the "Headlines" article and Delete the "List of guests" article. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All but I agree the nomination is weak (although these are crufty 'tis true). I don't see how these are justified by WP:SPINOUT and there is no assertion of any importance or significance of these topics outside the world of the particular show itself - which is where this information should be covered. Wikipedia is not a fansite. Eusebeus (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All! This is similar to an episode guide, which is not considered fancruft. 206.41.234.41 (talk) 12:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all of this discriminate, verfiable, and notable material that appears both on multiple notable shows and in numerous compilation publications as well that could probably even be expanded with additional searches for reviews. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.2.240.222 (talk) 16:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But this is a debate, not a poll! Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 03:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 02:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If you can't find 1000 refs about this, you can certainly find 100. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. Everyking (talk) 06:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp (talk) 22:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Poorly written but I see no reason why these articles should be deleted. Passes the WP:POKEMON test. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 09:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —ErgoSum88 (talk) 09:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "List of Guests on Late Night with Conan O'Brien" Really? Pretty much anybody remotely famous with a movie to plug has appeared on Late Night. This is completely unmaintable. Neutral "Headlines (The Tonight Show)" does not establish notability at the moment, but it probably could. Delete "Sketches from Late Night with Conan O'Brien" Pure cruft, and besides "Horny Manatee", compeletly unsourced. The Pokemon test is outdated now, since only 4 Pokemon have thier own article. --Phirazo 20:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep O'Brian sketches article; Merge headlines article if a suitable merge candidate is available (keep until then); Keep and improve list of guests article (at a minimum, what what episodes & dates they appeared on should be added).--Father Goose (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: From Academic Search Complete, I came across Wil B. Strange, "Strange World," Campus Life 53.4 (Nov94): 78. Anyway, the abstract reads, "Offers information on various strange items....Personal ads from the book `Jay Leno's Headlines'". Because the headlines segment appears both on the show and on compilation books, I would have to reckon reviews exist that can be used to expand that article. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't expect a whole lot of rigor from "Wil B. Strange". Who's his coauthor, I.P. Freely? --Phirazo 15:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the list of guests. The list is, indiscriminate, unsourced and fancruft. Individual guests aren't the central feature of the show. This isn't like Saturday Night Live hosts/List of Saturday Night Live episodes, where the guest hosts have the entire show (sketches, monologue, and advertising) designed specifically for their appearance. The latter article also doubles as a list of TV episodes, which is permissible under WP:TV. --Madchester (talk) 22:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: considering that published reviews exist for the shows that address the sketches and that the headlines have been sold in multiple books for which reviews are also likely to exist, there's no real reason to delete the articles. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The list of guests is unsourced. A list of episodes including guests might be notable (nbc used to have a list at least in part, which I still have a copy of - don't know if they still have that list). But a mass listing of just names seems fairly pointless. The sketch list is more notable, but still mainly a fansite thing. Sketches notable enough to make news references could support an article about a few of the most famous sketches, but not an unenforced list of every sketch. (Clutch Cargo is a commonly referenced one). The notable sketches could be a subsection in the Late Night article. To the Headlines article, it's more notable a topic, but I don't see it likely for there to be enough material to support an entire article. A subsection of the Tonight Show Leno article would suffice. TheHYPO (talk) 01:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Gujjars[edit]

The list is full of non notable and non encyclopedic content. Seems to be a promotional article. SMS ^Talk 17:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The majority of the people listed are students and will most likely never be notable. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 18:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not suitable for us. Punkmorten (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, another list of non-notable people. KleenupKrew (talk) 13:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BIAS but clean-up . Why Gujjars are any worse than Italians, or Poles etc M0RD00R (talk) 14:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've cleaned-up this article. I've left only "The rulers" section and individuals having wiki articles, therefore notable. M0RD00R (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the version as improved by M0RD00R, as it now is a value added list of notable people.-- danntm ^T _C 21:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Categories are better for organizing such information. utcursch | talk 03:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Utcursch. Stifle (talk) 20:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp (talk) 22:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Utcursch, nn Perfect Proposal ^{Speak Out!} 23:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Utcursch. --Lemmey talk 00:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 03:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Metal gear solid timeline[edit]

The article consists of basically copied and pasted text from a commercial product with no real world relevance. Delete or redirect to Metal Gear (series). Jonny2x4 (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Metal Gear (series) - most of the timeline info is contained in a more out-of-universe style there.Gazimoff ^Write _Read 00:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as per WP:GAMETRIVIA, which is really an issue of an article that fails to be notable independent of the main game topic. Otherwise, I would support summarizing it and merging it into the main metal gear series article. Randomran (talk) 00:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per randomran--SkyWalker (talk) 02:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. --.:Alex :. 09:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Metal Gear Solid. JJL (talk) 02:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus. Lyrics = no no. Not a plausible search term, no need for redirect, nothing really to merge that isn't already in the parent article (or could be added with this sentence: "Every episode ends with the singing of Goodbye." Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goodbye (Bear in the Big Blue House)[edit]

Article fails Wikipedia: Notability (music)#Songs Hydraton31 (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable song in any way, and the lyrics are a copyvio I assume. Theme songs aren't inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Apart from copyright issues of the lyrics, no reason information on song can't be included at Bear in the Big Blue House. Assuming the info is cited, which this article is not. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above Faith (talk) 07:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Bear in the Big Blue House. It's a very notable aspect of the show, but shouldn't have its own article. --Pwnage8 (talk) 21:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep --JForget 23:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Phantom Buzzer Game[edit]

This game is not especially notable in the NBA, and the way the article is written, especially the last part, makes it seem like it was copied from the article's only source. Plus, this article was made by a suspected sock puppet. Noble Story (talk) 11:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. First official protest upheld by the NBA establishes notability. Does need sources, however. Malinaccier (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There aren't any sources, besides the book already referenced, which is more of a kid's book than anything else. A relevant Google such as "Atlanta Hawks Chicago Bulls Bob Rakel" yields nothing beyond mirrors of this article. Noble Story (talk) 13:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are newspaper sources, so verification isn't the issue here. (There's a lot more from the Chicago Tribune archives.) Zagalejo^^^ 19:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I'm not sure if anyone really describes this game as "The Phantom Buzzer Game" (that was probably the chapter title in the Allan Zullo book), but this was indeed the first upheld protest in NBA history, according to old Chicago Tribune newspaper articles. Still, it's a relatively minor incident in the grand scheme of things. It might be worth a brief mention in the Chicago Bulls article, which has very little content on the pre-Jordan era Bulls. Zagalejo^^^ 19:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Chicago Bulls as it is probably important in the history of that team. As an article of itself it doesn't appear to be notable. --Deadly∀ssassin 19:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep include newspaper stories and maybe stub it (no need for so many sections with so little info). It is fine as a separate stub. It certainly doesn't need to be clogging up another article. Protonk (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp (talk) 22:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "first upheld protest in NBA history" is an assertation of notability, and refs do exist. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely an important part of basketball history that is deserving of an article. Electricbassguy (talk) 11:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeterSymonds (talk) 06:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Van Auken[edit]

Self-sourced article on a political no-hoper. His total tally of votes in the 2004 US Presidential election was, by an amazing coincidence, the same as the tally for the winning candidate in my local ward of the Reading local council election this week[11], noting in passing that local council elections in Britain have a turnout of around 1/3 of those eligible to vote. Politics can have notable losers, Bill Boaks is the example usually cited in the UK, but I do not see any evidence that this guy is one of them. Guy (Help!) 11:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The subject appeared on five state ballots as a nominee for President of the United States. There were only 17 presidential candidates who made it to the general election ballot in any state that year, and I tend to think that anyone who makes it through ballot access to the general presidential election is notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he received less than 2,000 votes. No way notability is satisfied. Eusebeus (talk) 23:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1,857 people voted for him, why do you want to delete this page?

PS: He had a party: Socialist Equality Party Presidential, with a Preceded by. see http://www.smartvoter.org/2006/11/07/ny/state/vote/vanauken_w/ Telecine Guy 09:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: Preceding comment copied from Talk:Bill Van Auken. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 07:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is an answer to the above, which is that the 1,857 represents 0.0015% of the popular vote, and there are no non-trivial independent biographical sources about the guy. Guy (Help!) 21:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Socialist Equality Party (United States). --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp (talk) 21:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there may be a couple reliable sources ([12][13]) and I could probably dig up a copy of the Van Aken-Van Auken Newsletter that mentions him, but in the end, he doesn't seem to have done anything to establish notability. Being a presidential candidate does not itself establish notability.--Michael White^T·C 22:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - U.S. presidential candidates who appear on state ballots are per se notable. He is listed in several places in Wikipedia with the nominees and vote totals in 2004. Moreover, his party has had ballot status and run numerous candidates around the country. Small left wing sectarian parties don't get many votes, but they are each an important part of the history of U.S. radicalism, which is of interest far beyond the small number of "true believers". Mainstream political historians and researchers will find his page useful. Kestenbaum (talk) 15:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable. Everyking (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: 26900 ghits. Four news.google.com hits that are not from his party's website and 9 that are. Fourteen Google Scholar hits that are not from his party's website, and 1 that is. Sixteen hits from Montgomery County, Md. library databases, of which some appear to be duplicates and others irrelevant. However, the 3 duplicative library database hits are all from the World Almanac and Book of Facts, which verifies that he indeed was a U.S. presidential candidate. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 06:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile the article remains stubbornly unsourced... Guy (Help!) 11:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three of those news sources are written by Van Auken himself, however. I think this is the ultimate "non-independent source" =) Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Delete, unsuccessful candidate for political office. A few trivial mentions that may be expected from such a candidature, but in the end I'm not convinced that he's any more notable than anyone else who gets their name on a ballot paper only to go nowhere. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. Running for US president is not like running for dogcatcher. Given ballot access requirements, getting a presidential and vice-presidential candidate on the ballot in more than one state is a pretty substantial task. In this case, the candidate was nominated by a national party which got him on the ballot (or at least received votes) in seven states. Kestenbaum (talk) 02:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - being on the ballot for US President does not convey notability and he secured a derisory number of votes. Though there are many Ghits, it is the quality that counts and substantial coverage of the subject has not been identified. Fails WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas "Chas" Connors[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Thomas "Chas" Connors

Non-notable guitarist, fails WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources listed, fails WP:MUSIC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tnxman307 (talk • contribs)
Delete WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Vincent[edit]

Unsourced biography which also fails WP:HOLE. Guy (Help!) 21:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Unsourced BLP. Nakon 21:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced and unlikely to ever be so; notable only for a brief appearance on Biggest Loser. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It ought probably to be noted that she was, in fact, the winner of the fifth season of the American version of the The Biggest Loser (to be sure, her appearance was, in the broader context of the show and its many versions, "brief", but she was not a one-off contestant on the season of the show on which she appeared, and, in view of her having won, is certain to have been covered in some depth in various secondary sources, such that, notwithstanding the unencyclopedic nature of some of the current article, it may not be that a reasonable, sourced article might not be produced). (I don't mean to suggest, I should saym that the winning of a prominent/notable reality show necessarily renders one notable [to my mind it does, but I've not been too active at AfD of late and haven't stayed particularly abreast of our practices with respect to reality show participants—which were, in the past, notoriously inconsistent—and so don't know whether the community have made any progress toward determining how generally to adjudge the notability of reality show contestants] or to offer any opinion on the underlying issue, only to offer a factual clarification). Joe 02:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability outside reality show. —97198 talk 14:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep except for copyvio Winner of a nationally televised reality show; that's notability enough. I found deleted sources in the article's history and will be restoring them to the article shortly. The last portion of the article is copyvio from a press release. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: On inspection, it appears one of the deleted sources was deleted by the nominator, who disputes the source's reliability. The article wasn't unsourced until he made it so. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 05:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fabrictramp (talk) 21:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pitbull Productions[edit]

The article was created in an apparent COI, cf. edit history. But that aside, is this film studio notable? A large number of external links are given. However most of them link to shopping sites, private homepages (Geocities), or other low-profile websites. Significant independent coverage in the main stream media seems to be missing. B. Wolterding (talk) 16:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real assertation of notability, especially not per the external links (which have been snipped). Even so, I'm not finding anything to really assert their notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - with Tiger Tyson. Seems the guy who helped start this company is more notable than the company is.Napsterbater (talk) 07:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alice in Chains' fourth studio album[edit]

Per ^[1] there is a new album due out Summer 2009.

What a load of balls. These articles are all inherintly speculative and overzealous creations. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict]Delete per WP:CRYSTAL; pure speculation. -Icewedge (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. No info exists on the album yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Using phrases like "album's title and release date have not yet been revealed" and "nor is it known if a title and release date have even been decided on" points right towards WP:CRYSTAL. TN‑X-Man 21:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:CRYSTAL. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Pure crystal.Kww (talk) 00:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 22:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Balkan Idols: Religion and Nationalism in Yugoslav States[edit]

I'm getting deja vu from a book I nommed for this process yesterday; the entire thing seems to be enticing me to buy a book with no actual notability whatsoever, complete with positive reviews and a link to more pro-this-boook-read-it-you-must type content. Seems unsavable to me. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is not in great shape and needs some cleaning up and to have references added. However, the book does appear notable per WP:BK even if the case is not very strong. GoogleScholar returns 61 hits[14]. There were at least three in-depth reviews (all positive) that I was able to find: Slavic Review, Vol. 63, No. 1 (Spring, 2004), pp. 169-170 [I got it from J-STOR], Journal of Southern Europe & the Balkans, Aug2003, Vol. 5 Issue 2, p262-263; Journal of the American Academy of Religion 2004 72(4):1059-1061. These are in-depth reviews that describe the book as a significant work. Also, Oxford University Press is a highly respected academic publishing house and the fact that the book was published there should be taken into account as well. Nsk92 (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a few references to reviews of the book to the main article. Nsk92 (talk) 21:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless more independent coverage of the book can be cited. The reviews in themselves are insufficient to satisfy WP:BK, #1. While the cited reviews are indeed reviews that partially satisfy the criterion, all I can find from them are a slight overview of the book's contents and not enough of the "sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary," or, in this case, an analysis of the contents of the nonfiction book. Without that analysis (or anything indicating the importance of the book in the appropriate field of study), there really isn't much there in the article, and it comes across as a promotional blurb. While Oxford University Press is a respected publisher in academia, not every volume it prints would be worthy of its own article, but I hope to be able to see enough in here to make this worthy of keeping. B.Wind (talk) 04:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, I found a couple of more academic reviews of the book, both freely available electronically and have added them to the article: in Religion and Society in Central and Eastern Europe, Volume 2, 2006[15] and Global Review of Ethnopolitics, Vol. 3, no. 3-4, March-June 2004[16] These are fairly in-depth reviews that discuss the book and its significance in detail.

Second, I would disagree with your characterization of the other reviews listed. I think they are sufficiently in-depth analytical discussions of the book that go substantially beyond a superficial plot summary. But people should try to read them and judge for themselves. There are also perfunctory reviews of this book, such as this one in Foreign Affairs[17]. But I think that the reviews referenced in the article are not in that category

Third, we are talking about reviews in academic journals rather than in popular press. Academic reviews are always restrained and are supposed to be written from a neutral point of view (I have written my share of them in mathematics for MathSciNet). So when people do make evaluative comments in academic reviews, they are more significant and meaningful than the popular press ones.

Fourth, I would also note that GoogleScholar is notoriously terrible in finding citations related to humanities, such as political science (This often comes up in AfD discussions of WP articles about academics). So the fact that there were 61 hits[18] here is significant. GoogleBooks gives another 21 hits [19]. Nsk92 (talk) 14:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whether the reviews cited are positive, negative, neutral or mixed has no bearing on on notability. What matters is that they exist. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reviews and citations are what make a book notable. This many citations for a recently published academic book in GS is highly significant. sop are reviews in the major journals, when they're more than just listings of new books. They do not bother giving full reviews to trivial books. DGG (talk) 01:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 03:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Server side request forgery[edit]

Protologism that appeared in a single powerpoint slide, has never been used again. Rulesdoc (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nom is correct. Nothing in Google Books or Scholar, 1 (non-WP) result in plain Google. Not a notable term. Jakew (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC) (edited 22:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. An interesting topic, but also an obscure one. The term used here ("server side request forgery") appears to have been a one-off coinage by the SchmooCon presenter. Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Server side request forgery is a new web vulnerability. The term SSRF was derived from XSRF. XSRF forges a client-side request where SSRF forges a server-side request. The term will be used in future scholarly articles and books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimbalwb (talk • contribs)
- When those scholarly articles and books have been written and published, we can restore this article (or write a new one based on the new information). Until then, though, the article is premature. Zetawoof_(ζ) 03:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Understood. SSRF should probably be deleted because it isn't published. Do all encyclopedia entries need to be published? Is that a requirement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimbalwb (talk • contribs)
  - Yes, being able to WP:VERIFY facts in the article from WP:RELIABLE sources is a requirement. (As are things like having a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) and no original research (WP:NOR) Wrs1864 (talk) 00:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I concure with the above and it appears that the author now says it should be deleted. Wrs1864 (talk) 00:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The additional sources have been reviewed by the commentators but the consensus remains that they are insufficient to establish notability. I notice that the essential content has also been added to The Rolling Stones#1962–1964, by the same user. It is for the editors of that article to determine whether the sources have sufficient reliability. Meanwhile, I see no reason not to have a redirect which I have created but with correct capitals (Outlook Club is a proper name). TerriersFan (talk) 23:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outlook club[edit]

Unsourced article on a music venue. Author asserts notability as the site of the Rolling Stones' first gig outside of Greater London. I prodded this earlier--author didn't remove the prod tag but protested on the talk page, so I took it here to AfD. --Finngall ^talk 21:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable venue. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 16:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as a non-notable venue. However, notability could quickly be established with a reliable source or two. Tnxman307 (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete non-notable club/business. Peter Fleet (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Author has added references. Everyone who has weighed in so far, please go back and look again. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 13:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to admins The article has been improved since the above delete !votes were added. As the article currently stands, I'm inclined to withdraw the nom, but am hesitant to do so without seeing a couple of second opinions. Barring last-minute input one way or the other, I think relisting would be in order in this case. --Finngall ^talk 15:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted bearing in mind the late sources which were added in order that a true consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I said delete above, but have noticed that this article has been relisted and sources have been added. I looked into the sources as best I could. Two of the links listed are photographs of the club with no claims of notability. I could not find any information on the Gazette article except for a poster on the paper's comments board who said the paper carried a "small notice on page 10 saying the Rolling Stones and the Hollies would be playing the next night". Unfortuntely, none of this really seems to hold up. I stand by my opinion listed above. TN‑X-Man 21:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've contacted the other two users to ask them to revisit, which I probably should have done when relisting. Stifle (talk) 08:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TNXMan. Unable to verify the sources cited other than what he said. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I said delete originally. I have reviewed the changes and my opinion hasn't changed. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 09:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teresa Scott[edit]

No evidence in article of notability per WP:PORNBIO. Tabercil (talk) 20:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - also worth noting that it had been flagged as having notability concerns since February -- Ratarsed (talk) 20:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Did an extensive google search and can't find any reliable sources to verify her notability. Vinh1313 (talk) 20:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources are found that verify the Playboy TV stint and/or confirm the notability & veracity of having her own show. caknuck _° is back from his wikisiesta 20:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dismas|^(talk) 04:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THE RUBBISH YOU SPOUT !!?? THIS BEAUTIFUL MODEL HAS APPEARED IN OVER 30 EPISODES OF HER OWN SHOW 
TERESA SCOTT UNLEASHED on TVX the FANTASY CHANNEL and REDHOT TV and she hosted the adult chat show FANTASY NIGHTCALLS 
She appeared on the PLAYBOY TV Nightcalls show with Emma and Chrissy and also appeared in a one off show TERESA'S FANTASIES ! 
You can't have searched the web very well..OR AT ALL I'D SAY ! GROW UP FOOLS.....

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There was no consensus for deletion. Further, the content of the articles can be verified so there is no failure of compliance with WP:V. OTOH the pages lack the secondary sources that would ordinarily be looked for to achieve notability. However, secondary sources do exist out there, here for example. There seems no need for separate pages and a combined article may help notability, and allow the DVD to be incorporated. Consequently, I am going to boldly merge and rename the pages as Titanic: The Complete Story as suggested during the AfD. If reliable secondary sources are not added in a reasonable time, for example during the next three months, then no objection can be taken to it being relisted. TerriersFan (talk) 01:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Titanic: The Legend Lives On[edit]

A two-part documentary about the RMS Titanic; does not seem to pass WP:N. The articles are unsourced, and Google reveals a number of blogs, private homepages, video shop sites, but no substantial independent sources. If no one else finds such sources, the film is not suitable for an article. Tagged with ((notability)) since June 2007. B. Wolterding (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No independant coverage. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both (but Merge for reasons I'll explain in a moment) for the same reason I voted to keep that Super Comet documentary that was AFD'd earlier. Productions made by national networks are inherently notable, and this production has also been released to home video. Possible WEB bias against a production that predated the rise of the Internet; not every production is going to have webpages devoted to them. If "Death of a Dream" is simply the first chapter and not an independent production, then these two articles should be Merged as there's no need to have separate articles; merge them under the Titanic: Death of a Dream title as we should use the first-chapter title. If they're separate productions, then keep them separate. 23skidoo (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not agree that "productions made by national networks" are inherently notable. As an encyclopedia, we need independent sources in order to write about these productions, Internet or not. That's not "WEB bias", but if one calls it "systematic bias against unencyclopedic topics", I'd agree. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. That rule was created in order to keep things like homemade productions and "things made up in school one day" out of Wikipedia. Anything made by a national network, whether it has a million things written about it or 1, is notable by its very existence. Such rules are in place to keep nonexistent items off the Wikipedia. If this production does not exist, then I'm willing to change my vote to "delete as hoax". 23skidoo (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, but WP:N does not guarantee anything to be notable "by its very existence". The question is not whether the film exists, but whether someone independent of the producer has substantially written about it. --B. Wolterding (talk) 08:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but merge This is a pretty notable documentary about the ship, especially because it features commentary from not only famous Titanic historians, but includes interviews with survivors. I would say merge the two articles, because they're part of the same documentary, I believe. If additional information is needed (ie, survivors and historians interviewed and the like) I have the documentary on DVD and can supply any additional information necessary. Morhange (talk) 01:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentions it is now available from History Channel Home Video on a single DVD, "Titanic: The Complete Story", so if a merger happens, the article should be listed at Titanic: The Complete Story Morhange (talk) 01:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Although I prefer the original broadcast/release titles to be used, I could live with merging the two into one article of that name as there's some uncertainty over the umbrella title anyway. 23skidoo (talk) 18:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename "Titanic: The Complete Story" Documentary included these two segments and also "Beyond Titanic". Faith (talk) 07:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: The Titanic is obviously an encyclopædic topic, but is every major documentary about it also encyclopædic? If I open a print encyclopædia, I'd expect to see a full-length article on the Titanic, one or more articles on related topics, a brief article on the movie, and no mention at all of the documentaries unless they uncover some fact previously unknown that alters the consensus view of what caused the accident. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 06:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above, without prejudice for later deleting the merged article, because I'm not really convinced that this documentary, even if well made and interesting, is notable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete This is a non-notable documentary. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Mahnken[edit]

Non-notable blogger. A brief mention in an online journal like Forbes (as having the 5th best baseball blog 5 years ago) does not establish notablity. Apparently even the subject of this article admits the minor accolades for his blog were problaby well-intentioned but misplaced. Captain Intangibles (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All of the bloggers in the world appear to think that they are notable. But most of them, alas, are nothing more than bloggers, and anybody can become one. Qworty (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: At what point does the "significant "cult" following" element of WP:BIO kick in? RGTraynor 16:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 19:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable.Renee (talk) 19:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 kdegames. Fabrictramp (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KSirtet[edit]

This Tetris clone may be enjoyable, but seems non-notable per WP:PRODUCT. Except for the manual, only one source is given, and this one is still within the KDE community and cannot be considered independent. PROD was contested without comment. B. Wolterding (talk) 19:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, no secondary sources.Renee (talk) 19:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to kdegames. Article isn't notable enough by itself, but would be a worthy addition to a list with a lot of red. Gazimoff ^Write _Read 00:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to list - the single source is not enough to satisfy WP:N, but could be mentioned in a broader article. Marasmusine (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to list and redirect. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 06:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and Partial Merge. I've also merged some of the content into the Lindsey Lohan's article under the third album section (info that was not already in the main article). Please feel free to do the appropriate fixes if necessary like removing unnecessary info, etc.--JForget 17:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Lohan's Third Album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Lindsay Lohan's Third Album

No title. No release date. Sourced primarily by gossip columns, with rumors of "so-and-so is working with Lindsay Lohan on her untitled, unscheduled, third album". This thing has been promised several times (and many of the sources are promises for dates that have come and gone). Not enough meat to build an article from, and a magnet for crystal ball violations. Kww (talk) 19:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Belongs on her fan site; no secondary sources.Renee (talk) 19:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as with all speculative articles about "x artists's nth studio album". caknuck _° is back from his wikisiesta 20:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What a load of balls. These articles are all inherintly speculative and overzealous creations. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inherently speculative indeed. Singers in this genre tend to be the biggest rumor targets ever. Save it for the 8,000,000 fan sites (God, why?) for Lindsey. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Check back when it hits the shelves. TN‑X-Man 22:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Deleted comment by banned user)

- Comment The problem with Dido's forthcoming album has been fixed. Kww (talk) 22:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there don't seem to be reliable sources that can verify this crystal ball gazing. Bfigura ^(talk) 00:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but revisit in the fall if no release has been announced. The sources listed include Fox News, People Magazine, and the subject's own webpage. That's not exactly what I'd consider unreliable sources. Obviously there's a move afoot in Wikipedia to no longer accept official websites as legitimate (I still can't figure that out), so even if you discounted Lohan's page, the Fox and People sites can't be considered unreliable. However as announced albums do have a tendency to go vaporware or be rescheduled (examples: Laurie Anderson's new album was announced for 2008 but has been pushed back to 2009 and Enya reportedly was working on a new album for release at Christmas 2008 -- and this was announced in reputable news sources, I might add -- and it never happened), I do recommend that if no title or official release date is announced by the end of the summer, then this could be relisted. For now it does no harm to keep it here as the sources are sufficient to indicate this isn't a hoax and therefore there is no WP:BLP issue. 23skidoo (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first People source says, in it's entirety: Lindsay Lohan, who is already working on a new album with producer J.R. Rotem, gets warmed up for a recording session at a Los Angeles studio on Tuesday. The second source is about Bossy (Lindsay Lohan Song), which has its own article that isn't nominated. Fox News says: Yes, folks, it’s true: Lindsay Lohan is busy recording her third album. She’s left the auspices of Tommy Mottola and his non-starter revival of Casablanca Records, but stayed in the Universal Music Group family. Following in the hallowed footsteps of Mary Wells, the Supremes and Martha Reeves, not to mention more recently Erykah Badu, Lindsay is now on Motown. You’re snickering, but don’t: Motown once was called "The Sound of Young America." And La Lohan at 21 fits that bill. I am told that among her collaborators is Snoop Dogg, who has cut a track with Lindsay that insiders say sounds "amazing." UMG is sparing no expense on this recording, bringing in all the usual suspects like Timbaland and Pharrell to make a good record for the rehabbed and revived Lindsay. Note: No dates, tracklists, or anything meaningful. The small amount of information from those sources is already in the Lindsay Lohan article.Kww (talk) 19:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per every single Wikipedia rule. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's got sources like someone said above CloversMallRat (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the info onto Lindsay Lohan and delete the page. The sources are legitimate, but the album has too many flaky details that violate WP:CRYSTAL. There's no final tracklist or title or release date; all we have are people who are working on it. It doesn't merit its own page at this point. SKS2K6 (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, as passing WP:BIO, and more specifically, WP:ATHLETE. Article improvement notwithstanding, no reason for deletion. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Klausler[edit]

Unsourced article article, unverified individual, no notability asserted. I withdraw if someone can find sources. Mini stub with no external links or citations. Latinlover-sa (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable driver. Never placed higher than sixth, unable to locate non trivial coverage in reliable sources. Beeblbrox (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Competing in the Indy 500 certainly is a pass at WP:ATHLETE for competing at the highest level of his sport. [20] RGTraynor
Comment without advice. He finished 29th in his only Indy 500, ahead of Mike Mosley and Dick Whittington, but behind Pete Halsmer, Bill Whittington, and Jerry Karl, amongst others. B.Wind (talk) 04:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment Still waiting for some sources to get this one past verifiability before we can even really address notability Beeblbrox (talk) 04:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Why not read the previous comments before weighing in? RGTraynor provided a source verifiability above. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 19:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, no secondary sources.Renee (talk) 20:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As previously stated the subject competed at the top level of his sport, and has been verified to have done so, so clearly pases WP:BIO. How successfully he competed is not a notablity criterion. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Waggers (talk) 12:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ronin (band)[edit]

There is a dispute about the notability of this band (WP:MUSIC). The article was tagged with ((notability)) since June 07. I recently PRODded it, for failing the criteria: The band has released only one album, and the article makes some other claims which are illustrious but unsourced. The PROD was contested, and the maintenance tags removed, by an IP user without comment. Another user later restored the maintenance tags. I'm sending it here to resolve the issue. B. Wolterding (talk) 19:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This band, also called Ronin, appears to have some press, but I couldn't find anything on the Singapore one above, and their "official" website is a dead link. Non-notable. Renee (talk) 20:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep pending verification of claims that their video was in heavy rotation on MTVAsia and that they're signed to Universal's regional label. If one or both of these facts are substantiated, WP:MUSIC should be satisfied. caknuck _° is back from his wikisiesta 20:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; looked a bit around for info on this band, and if the sources are reliable enough, it seems they fulfill WP:MUSIC - criteria for musicians on point 2. (a national hit) and 10. (written a piece for a notable film). The last point isn't really strong enough by itself, though - referring to Caknuck’s point - it indeed appears they have/had a deal with Universal. All in all, probably enough to keep the article. --Van helsing (talk) 09:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:N. Sources were added but the subject still fails the policy. PeterSymonds (talk) 06:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vamana Maharaja[edit]

I can not locate any citation or links to any sources to assume that he should be on Wikipedia. No links whatsoever. MBest-son (talk) 22:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

then what is Sri Prabandhavali ISBN 81-86737-00-6 Syama (talk) 15:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable with no reliable sources, questionable sources at best. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have found an online copy of the source (which was already cited in the article before this AfD was started) and have linked the article to it. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 19:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article is still about a non notable. Also, sources are questionable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, even with the source, this person doesn't seem to be all that notable. Staying weak, as I suppose it's possible that there might be more texts in Indian languages about this person. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. seresin ( ¡? ) 08:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TESCAN[edit]

Independent sources about this company seem to be lacking; it fails WP:CORP. PROD was contested, and the notability tag removed, by an IP user without comment. B. Wolterding (talk) 19:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article makes one claim on notability, a national award, which I could not verify. Until some reliable sources are added, this article fails WP:CORP. TN‑X-Man 22:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does this page contain links to any sites that would help the company meet the notability guideline? Fg2 (talk) 02:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question – the second reference points to the main page of the Institute of Scientific Instruments of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, not to a page that specifically mentions the company. Can you please provide a better link? Also need a source to verify the national award. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 06:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:CORP, but if a source can be found verifying the award, please disregard this comment. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Waggers (talk) 13:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Greene[edit]

Unreferenced stub on a non-notable businessman. A google news search throws up nothing more about him, and nor does a search of The Irish Times archive.

He's allegedly worth €25 million, which is better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, but does not of itself confer notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom ww2censor (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep (non-admin closure). Clear bad faith nomination from sock puppet user impersonating the administrator that blocked him. WilliamH (talk) 19:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sportsbook.com[edit]

This article is being used as promotion for the company. They are seeking to legitimize an unsavory reputation and optimize search placement by exploiting the Wikipedia brand. All verifiable content which does reflect positively on the company is vehemently removed. Since the authors do not wish to present an unbiased view of the topic, this violates the Wikipedia principle of NPOV and so should be deleted. Ricky6546549 (talk) 17:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and welcome back Fadeintoyou. Article is sourced. Subject is one of the biggest Internet sportsbooks. The article could stand some improvement but that is no reason to delete it. Anyone who vies the edit history can plainly see that you and your sockpuppets have been edit warring. Enough. Goodbye now. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 18:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spare the beaureaucratic jargon and keep the debate factual please.Ricky6546549 (talk) 18:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep bad faith nom, user is a sock puppet and is impersonating the administrator that blocked him, User:Ricky81682 [21], see User_talk:Fadeintoyou, Talk:Sportsbook.com and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sportsbook.com_spammer. ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 19:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Adventure (Video Game Hack)[edit]

Not notable. Features no reliable, third-party, independent coverage, simply a game guide list of everything it does. PROD removed by author. hbdragon88 (talk) 18:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I cannot find any reliable sources that would assert notability. WilliamH (talk) 19:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to failure to cite sources in accordance with verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Marasmusine (talk) 22:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V and WP:N. Marasmusine (talk) 22:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a lack of reliable research supporting notability. Randomran (talk) 00:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - could not find any reliable sources for this.Gazimoff ^Write _Read 00:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - simply some random person's hack with aboslutely no notability whatsoever. --.:Alex :. 09:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 contribution by a banned user; deletion made by Keeper76. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heisenberg's Scientific Method[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Contested prod. This isn't an article, it's an essay ... and one laden with WP:OR. Author Dankal.naveen (talk · contribs) is suspected of being a sock of blocked pseudoscience pusher W.GUGLINSKI (talk · contribs). Blueboy 96 17:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. See Wikipedia:No original research. EdJohnston (talk) 17:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Omaré[edit]

Notability issues. Claims to be referenced by the "French Beauty Product Committee," but a look at the Website for this committee makes it appear to be an obscure trade organization. No significant coverage that I can tell. Blueboy 96 17:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could not find more reliable, independent third-party sources. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 06:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suranaree School[edit]

Poorly translated summary on a non-notable topic. Jedibob5 (talk) 16:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poorly written article that fails WP:N.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 17:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Article is now notable and is now well-written. -- RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 22:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have rewritten this article with the multiple sources available here. The school has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so it does meet the notability standard. These sources have been inserted into the article, which is now verifiable, a key standard. The school also proves its notability with quotes from The Nation newspaper (a reliable source), calling it "Nakhon Ratchasima's top school"[22]. Being the "top school" in Thailand's third largest city is a sure sign of notability. Note also that due to Thailand being a majority Thai-speaking country, and using a different alphabet, that there may be many more sources in the Thai language which prove this school's notability even more conclusively. Regards, EJF (talk) 22:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Even the original version should never have been nominated; the rewritten version certainly doesn't warrant deletion. I wish people would spend 10 seconds on Google before they carry out drive-by AFD noms. — iridescent 22:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SCHOOL and WP:CORP. B.Wind (talk) 06:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per User:EJF above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lerdsuwa (talk • contribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —EJF (talk) 09:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. —EJF (talk) 09:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per User:EJF. Hey! Nice save! DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to its standing as "Nakhon Ratchasima's top school"", among other reasons _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 02:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. seresin ( ¡? ) 08:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LightDriver[edit]

Article is about a video game which doesn't appear to be notable under WP:N. Plvekamp (talk) 16:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:N Snellios (talk) 16:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nom - This article had previously been prod'd by me, but tag was removed by original editor without comment. Plvekamp (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this video game actually seems useful, but isn't it interesting that its article is actually longer than that about the company that makes it? The company's main product (according to its Wikipedia article) is automotive headlights, not the game. Also, as I understand, WP:USEFUL is not a criterion. However, I found a source. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 06:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not appear to be a notable piece of software, very little on Google, which usually is a good indicator of the notability of software products. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously Dude, Where's My Car?[edit]

Unsourced rumour about a future film. IMDb has no mention of it. Per WP:NFF, Films which have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced shooting should not have their own articles. If any source can be produced, this could maybe be mentioned in the main Dude, Where's My Car? article. Contested PROD. JohnCD (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously Dude, Where's Your Source?. Delete per nom. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:CRYSTAL. Google finds sources saying it will be released in 08, 06, and 04. A rumor that's been going a long time, and no movie has ever come from it. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or Merge if citable If there can be a source cited, then it should be merged with the Dude, Where's My Car? article in its own section. Otherwise, it seems best off to be deleted altogether. Jade Owl 11:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources towards its production. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF, WP:CRYSTAL, and likely hood of being a hoax/joke/someone's odd dream. Collectonian (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Waggers (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Fire Help[edit]

Non-notable website with a few hints of advertisement. Don't know why this wasn't deleted eight months ago. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 16:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as NN; almost no google hits, nothing on g-news, g-scholar, or g-books. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is unfortunate what with all the spam, commercial, politics, and cruft websites people try to promote on Wikipedia that this appears to actually be a useful website. Nonetheless, Wikipedia is not a web directory. KleenupKrew (talk) 18:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: per KleenupKrew above. (Note: there are about 12 Google hits.) 69.140.152.55 (talk) 05:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Sparks[edit]

AfDs for this article:

One-line sub-stub article on a non-notable former political advisor. No references in the article.

A Google News search throws up only a few trivial mentions of him, in the midst of lots of hits for other people of the same name. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that previous AFD closed as a keep, but there was only one reference to a secondary source. Sparks is indeed the subject of that article, but I'd prefer a higher standard for notability than one newspaper article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While Wikipedia has no deadline, if nothing significant or notable has been written about Mr. Sparks in 3 years, it's highly unlikely that there will ever be. I don't even think this is worthy of a redirect to Dick Spring. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 17:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While there is also a mention of him on the website of a company he is partner in, there is nothing notable to be found through google either. ww2censor (talk) 17:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a case of WP:BLP1E. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Political advisor, no assertion of notability. KleenupKrew (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and Shinmawa. Guliolopez (talk) 12:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the shortest illiterate article ever.Red Hurley (talk) 18:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nonsense. Blueboy 96 17:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wabel[edit]

Was tagged for speedy (under WP:CSD#G1, nonsense) by Realkyhick but contested by Jake the Editor Man, who proposed transwikiing to Wiktionary. It seems very like a word someone made up in school one day, and I can't find any reference to it on a Google search. Olaf Davis | Talk 16:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speediest delete possible. I can't believe that someone removed the speedy-delete tag that I placed, and replaced it with a tag to ship it off to Wiktionary and let them deal with it. This is patent nonsense, pure and simple, and should have never gotten to the AfD stage in the first place. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Neologism, no source, no confirmation from anywhere else, a classic example of a word made up in school one day. Don't waste Wiktionary's time with this. I recently proposed a new speedy for this kind of thing, but the consensus was that existing speedy criteria like G1 and G3 were adequate, so I'm afraid we'll have to go on wasting time with AfDs like this one. JohnCD (talk) 16:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 19:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of double bass players in other popular genres[edit]

This was bundled in with some other (better) bass-related lists in a no-consensus AfD a couple of years ago, when the main concerns were: unlilkely title, unclear scope, easily replaced by a category... Several entries don't even appear to be double bassists at all. Littered with redlinks and nonlinks, i.e. vanity magnet... Bad list. Deiz talk 16:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment old AfD is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of guitarists. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Title is also a major concern - "other popular genres"? First line of article seems to arbitrarily decide that classical and jazz are the popular genres that these are other to, but double bass players play in a wide variety of musical genres as a matter of course - they're common in folk and rockabilly and were de rigueur in rock in the 1950s. Grutness...wha? 01:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:LC points 1, 2, and 9. Stifle (talk) 08:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Pham[edit]

Non-notable biography. All references are from a local university newspaper. Brianga (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:N Snellios (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as blatant vanispamcruftisement. Note that nearly all of the principal contributors are socks of Azurik (talk · contribs), whom I have blocked for abusive sockpuppetry. Blueboy 96 18:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable entrepreneur and apparent spam. KleenupKrew (talk) 18:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, and I'll stick coi infront of vanispamcruftisement. WilliamH (talk) 19:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Cooper (professor)[edit]

Subject is not notable or "worthy of notice"; that is "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." The awards and honors mentioned are not notable, and poorly sourced at that. Subject also does not meet creative professional criteria. Eustress (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First, I should note that the nominator is using an incorrect guideline. For academics, WP:PROF is the appropriate guideline. Second, there was incorrect info in the WP article about his rank (which I just changed). He was listed as a "distinguished professor" (which would almost certainly have made him notable), while his vita available at the BYU website[23] actually lists him as an associate professor, who was only promoted to that rank from assistant professor in 2007. The PhD date (1999) is fairly recent and there is not much in terms of citability of his publications that I could find in GoogleScholar, WoS or Scopus. I agree with the nominator that the awards listed in his faculty profile[24] are not sufficiently significant to indicate notability. In short, I don't see enough here to satisfy any of the criteria of WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 16:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nsk92 and lack of references to satisfy WP:PROF. JohnCD (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no books, a few articles and reports. The awards are just graduate fellowships. Not yet notable. DGG (talk) 01:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete No evidence of notable impact (according to google scholar, the most cited of the 7 peer-reviewed publications on his CV has 3 citations, both citations of his Security Studies papers are self-citations, as is sole citation of the Perspectives on Global Development and Technology paper... etc.) Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 03:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kensal Belgian Society[edit]

No evidence for encyclopedic notability, no independent sources. Previous prod was removed without explanation. High on a tree (talk) 15:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No references and no evidence of notability of any kind. A plain Google search returns measely 16 hits[25]. Nsk92 (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Almost certainly a hoax. I tagged this as a hoax previously but the tag was removed with no explanation.Malcolma (talk) 08:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa whoa whao internet Nazis - we're certainly not a hoax - you can come and visit us if you wish - the KBS hq is located on Harrow Road, London. We're not very good at Wikipedia though so it would be good to know how to defend ourselves - we can be emailed at kensalbelgiansociety@gmail.com

but in the meantime be assured that it is a real society and as such should be allowed to be referenced on wikipedia - Unless this domain is saved for corporations such as Coca Cola or Universal etc etc, who the wikipedia warriors seem to ultimately support.

Is there an article about you in Encyclopedia Britannica? If not, do you call Britannica editors "book Nazis" because of that?

About "defending" yourselves - no need for that language either. Wikipedians are not going to raid your HQ to kidnap Elizabeth Cox the Bearded Dragon or Isabelle Lizzard the Leopard Gecko. If you were talking about the existence of a certain entry on this website instead, please read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and reflect a bit on the difference between an encyclopedia and a social networking site like Facebook. Regards, High on a tree (talk) 02:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Defend Colorado Now[edit]

AfDs for this article:

A proposed 2006 ballot initiative that failed to submit enough signatures to qualify for the ballot. Didn't make the ballot, therefore not encyclopedic. The first AFD was conducted while this was still attempting to qualify for the ballot and ended in no consensus. Delete. KleenupKrew (talk) 14:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. GoogleNews returns 168 hits. [26] Looks enough to me to signify notability. However, if kept, the article needs serious improvement. It has been around since March 2006 and still has no references or citations. Probably should be stabified unless someone takes the time to produce verifiable references for the various facts mentioned. Nsk92 (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - of course it is going to get 168 news hits, mostly from local Colorado newspapers I might add, from it having been a proposed ballot initiative. But notability is not temporary, and this proposed initiative did not even make the ballot. Is there any evidence of continuing news coverage and interest in this topic? KleenupKrew (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm-m. First, I would disagree, to a point, with your logic. To me the phrase " notability is not temporary" actually means something different, namely, that once an event has become notable, it remains notable even if the amount of coverage significantly decreases over time (it always does, no matter how widely covered an event was at the time). So to me the real question is how much coverage the proposal has received while it was being active. Moreover, in this case, even though the proposal did not gather enough signatures, it had won legislative support and, if the WP article is correct, was essentially passed into law as HB 1023 in July 2006 (actually, this probably needs to be verified). There were also some post-2006 references to DCN in the news, such as these [27][28], [29], [30], [31],[32]. Much as I personally dislike this DCN stuff, it does appear to pass WP:N requirements to me. Nsk92 (talk) 19:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado HB 1023 seems to be a notable enough law for an article (although it doesn't appear to have one), but DCN at most rates a paragraph in an article on HB 1023 as an unsuccessful precursor to that law. Anyway, the way I read "notability is not temporary" is if something gets immediate coverage but does not show any sign of being an encyclopedic topic indefinitely, it was never notable to begin with. Sort of the non-biographical counterpart to WP:BLP1E as well as a guard against excessive WP:RECENTist bias in Wikipedia coverage. I would support, as an alternative, moving/renaming this article to a broader one on Colorado HB 1023, leaving whatever DCN content is sourced and notable as a background to the passage of HB 1023. DCN alone just isn't notable enough to stand as an article on its own. KleenupKrew (talk) 19:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Barely WP:N and non-encyclopedic as the nom mentioned. Jedibob5 (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Defend Article Now Keep as something with real world notability; referencing concerns should be addressed per Wikipedia:SOFIXIT. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Like much in politics, spin matters. Call this a ballot initiative that never got on the ballot, and notability is questionable. Call it a political movement that resulted in the passage of specific legislation, and it appears in a different light. Sourcing can be improved, but this is not a deletion matter. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The delete-arguers above appear to misunderstand the way WP:N works; Nsk92 is spot on. This was once notable = this is now notable, as far as we're concerned. — iridescent 22:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this appears verifiable and notable. Legislation (or ballot initiatives) don't have to suceed to become notable. See the Equal Rights Amendment for an example. Bfigura ^(talk) 00:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are fifty states, most of which have an initiative system. If we added every proposed initiative that fails to make the ballot Wikipedia would be overwhelmed with proposals that never met the minimum level of support. I'm in favor of having articles on politicians who win primaries and participate in elections, but I'm opposed to creating articles on people whose chief claim to notability is having failed in a primary. Likewise with initiatives. Also, looking at the last AfD for this topic I think it is was incorrectly closed. Delete/merge appears to have been the more popular choice than the two "weak keeps". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep major state-wide event with much more general political implications, as discussed n the article. DGG (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not just any failed ballot initiative. Miami33139 (talk) 17:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, no assertion of notability per speedy delete cat. a7 (web). NawlinWiki (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trees are Memories[edit]

This short film seems unremarkable to me, I can't find anything on Google except for the trailer which is on YouTube. There is only an unofficial website hosted on Freewebs. As much as I support this films cause, I don't think it has a place on Wikipedia. Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 14:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N I also only found only you tube Jeepday (talk) 14:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No references to reliable sources to indicate notability per WP:N or WP:MOVIE. The film is not even listed at IMDb[33]. Nsk92 (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject is not notable, and I cannot find any reliable sources that would assert notability. WilliamH (talk) 19:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this strongly fails the notability guideline for films. It's a short film created to raise money for a local hospital. Good idea, sure, but not notable. Bfigura ^(talk) 00:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Don't see anything to indicate that it's notable. Note that I am the one who originally placed ((db-spam)) on it. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 13:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Yes I realised that, however, since it has failed a previous CSD, I had to place the article up for AfD. I hope you understand. Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 14:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no, it wasn't a failed CSD. The author removed it, so that should have been reversed and a warning left. Generally, only an admin is allowed to remove a CSD. The same person keeps removing the AfD notice as well.AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant ad for completely unnotable "film" and its website and YouTube video. AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I do not think that this should be deleted... as there must be a good reason some one put it on here in the first place... I bet it will turn up on imdb sooner or later... just let it be, fussing over it won't help anyone... it will just waste your time. I'ts not hurting anyone is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poiuyla (talk • contribs) 11:27, May 12, 2008 — Poiuyla (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Do not Delete per WP:N I found it on IMDB pro... which means it will appear on imdb soon... so it is notible. I also emailed great Ormand Street Hospital, and they backed the project up, 12 May 2008 (User talk:No user)(UTC) — 78.147.0.74 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Existance on IMDB Pro, nor IMDB does not indicate notability per WP:N. Requires significant coverage in MULTIPLE sources, not a supposed single mention on a site requiring registration. AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does, as IMDB check their listings very carefully —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwertypix (talk • contribs) 17:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC) — Qwertypix (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Again, no it does not. Existance on IMDB is not a criteria for notability. And vote stacking is highly inappropriate. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete I agree.... this film seems fully notible... I don't understand what everyone is getting at? It is on IMDB pro.. and maybe its just not released yet...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwertypix (talk • contribs) 17:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC) — Qwertypix (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There was a clear consensus that the subject fails to meet notability guidelines. In addition, the article is wholly lacking secondary sources. Though there are sources available, they fail to cover the subject in depth. There is also presently a failure to meet WP:V. TerriersFan (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Commisso[edit]

Encyclopedic notability not established (one of 39 legislators of a county of 300,000 inhabitants, cf. WP:POLITICIAN). No independent sources. High on a tree (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable per WP:BIO#Politicians. JohnCD (talk) 14:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure about this one. A GoogleNews search (even after some filtering to exclude hits about a golfer from 1930s-1940s with same name), returns 82 hits[34]. One could make an argument that this constitutes "significant press coverage", satisfying WP:POLITICIAN. On the other hand, the coverage is all in the local newspapers and the articles mention him rather than are features about him. So I am not sure how WP:POLITICIAN is to be interpreted here. Nsk92 (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's Chairman of the Albany Democratic Party - that's quite an important position. It's not like he's some random Legislator, but head of the Democratic Party in the Capital of New York State and a prominent party boss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.144.72 (talk) 17:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. County party chairs are not inherently notable. If he was a state party chair he might be, but right now, no. KleenupKrew (talk) 18:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep:~~ No opinion. May pass WP:BIO#politicians. Is mentioned in a current news story. 69.140.152.55 (talk). Basically, I agree with User:Nsk92 above. 06:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's two mentions in passing in a long text from a local newspaper. In contrast, WP:BIO#politicians defines "significant press coverage" as has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. Regards, High on a tree (talk) 07:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, would appear no more notable than a local councillor or other similar 'minor' politician. News coverage is extensive, but very localised, and I haven't found any that are about him. Seems to fail WP:BIO on those grounds. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I have redirected to Total Nonstop Action Wrestling until a list article is created. seresin ( ¡? ) 08:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meltdown: The Music of TNA Wrestling Vol. 2[edit]

I don't believe this article is notable, and it has no references. King iMatthew 2008 14:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Yes, this does need references, but WWE albums have articles, so what makes TNA any difference? D.M.N. (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OTHERSTUFF.--Fabrictramp (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Wikipedia:MUSIC#Albums states In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage. So...I believe TNA is notable enough to have its albums on Wikipedia, but if no independent coverage exists, then I believe they all should be merged into one page, perhaps List of TNA albums or something to that effect. Nikki311 22:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me, other comments? King iMatthew 2008 23:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the albums may not justify their own entries, I'd be more than happy to take on merging them if that's what is decided--Apsouthern (talk) 11:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Darrenhusted (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Just because an article doesn't have references doesn't mean it shouldn't be an article. it just means it needs to be properly sourced. The album is notable per WP:Music[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 04:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question, what WP:MUSIC criteria does this album meet? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Delete, just a track list. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 06:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, I was not able to find any reliable, non-trivial sources covering this release, per WP:N. WP:MUSIC has no explicit guidelines for compilation albums, so I'm not sure how that would apply here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Pregnancy. Sandstein 22:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical_pregnancy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Chemical pregnancy

This article is redundant. Chemical pregnancy is covered in pregnancy and pregnancy test. Little can be elaborated to this article, it would never make more than a stub. As such it should be deleted or redirected somewhere else

Delete article is no more than a dicdef, and the term does not seem well established - only 56 Ghits. JohnCD (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure at this point. This is not quite a typical dictionary definition but more of a technical medical/scientific term. I don't know if it deserves a separate WP entry distinct from pregnancy. GoogleScholar returns 334 hits [35] which appears to indicate sufficiently widespread usage of the term in scientific literature. GoogleBooks returns 152 hits[36]. If it can be expanded to include more substantive information than currently given in the WP entry, then it probably could be kept. Otherwise one could add a few sentences to the pregnancy article. Nsk92 (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
redirect this has 26 google news hits which indicate WP:RS- newspapers and so on [37] so I don't know how people are getting the other figures, but I recommend using google news (at least instead of ordinary google, and alongside scholar and books if you feel like using them) anyway, as like "scholar" and "books" it indicates reliable sources. This is far more than would be expected for a non-notable article subject. However, not much can be said about it which isn't covered in other articles, so I suggest a redirect to either "miscarriage" or "pregnancy test" or whatever people prefer. Women who have had one, or their partners, will search for this term, and it is a well known term among women who are trying to conceive and their partners. (I imagine this is quite a lot of the population at some point in their lives.) Sources mentioning it include the Guardian, the Telegraph, Washington Post, New York Times, ABC and Wall Street Journal, so you can't say the phenomenon hasn't at least been noted in passing at the vey least, in many of the most reliable sources- the broadsheets and so on. Merkin's mum 18:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pregnancy or maybe Complications of pregnancy and define the term there; also add it to Wiktionary. Right now this is a definition, not an encyclopedic article. Merenta (talk) 02:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Snellios (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pregnancy or something and mention there. It may be split out later if enough material has been added. Try pubmed. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 17:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yaris Bean[edit]

May possibly be a hoax; i for one have never heard of a Yaris bean, the only web link i could find for "yaris" is a car and the article itself has no sources. The user who created this has only contributed to this page, so its unknown as to whether or not he's a trustworthy editor. Ironholds (talk) 13:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Cant find any references the bean exists other than its wikipedia entry. AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources, and I can find none. JohnCD (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources or references anywhere to indicate that "Yaris bean" even exists. The plain Google search returns only two hits, one of which to the WP entry[38]. Possible hoax? Either way, fails WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable, lacks reliable sources, I get three Google hits; The first is to the article, the second is to Deletion Today (refering to this very discussion) and the third is a .pdf file where it appears in a list and not as described in the article. I'm gonna say this is a either a hoax or made up Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Pastordavid (talk) 20:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kathia Baba[edit]

Its completely unreferenced and appears like a cut and paste job from a webpage. Not notable, possible original research and no references to support notability MBest-son (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. With all the effort that's gone into writing the article (why is it that only Indians use such wonderful English words as circumambulation?) I would have hoped that the creator would have provided one short sentence to say who or what this is. The article seems to be about a sect which is organised as a charitable trust, but it also says that the term Kathia Baba refers to saints within a sect. The external link is no more informative. There are a few Google Books hits for the article title, all of which seem to be about people with this name, or whose names include this, rather than a sect, but Google doesn't display enough for us to establish whether these are in any way related to this article. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's take it slow on this one. I'll see if I can find a WikiProject to look at this. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 05:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I left a message at Wikipedia talk:Hinduism-related topics notice board. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 05:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added a reliable source to the notability and the article can be stubbed and kept in this condition until any other source found. Wikidās ॐ 12:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC) I actually changed to keep - we need current Nimbarka sampradaya representatives for an upcoming project that includes it as a part of larger scheme. Wikidās ॐ 21:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikidas. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Article, as written, is incomprehensible to those who do not already have a background in the subject matter. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 05:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - hard to know what this is about, although it may well be notable. Perhaps scaling it back to a few paragraphs or sections in an attempt to first identify what it is, then gradually expand (with many more references) would help. Without that, I don't see that this article adds to the project. Philosophy is hard to write about; I think it's even harder when its original language is different than the one in which it's being written about. There's no WP:ITSTOOHARD policy that I know of, so I'm not suggesting we can't or shouldn't have the article or series of them, but as it is now, it's not really understandable. Frank | talk 16:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muraleeravom[edit]

Appears to be an article about a house. Nothing in the article shows how it is notable, and would appear to be unverifiable. Kevin (talk) 12:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--just barely fails being patent gibberish. Still, totally nonnotable--even if it is a "beautiful home". TallNapoleon (talk) 12:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's a house. No references, no indication of notability. JohnCD (talk)
Delete per WP:Notability. --Eustress (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as absolutely non-encyclopedic. Salih (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Private house. No assertion of notability or significance of any kind. Nsk92 (talk) 17:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 03:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 03:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 03:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WEEP (defunct)[edit]

~~Unlicensed station which has been off the air for 6 years, lacks sufficient notability and history to warrant an article.~~ Rtphokie (talk) 12:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There is a little notability, but the station no longer exists. AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - can you expand on that? How is it a little notable?--Rtphokie (talk) 15:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why was this article moved just before being nominated for deletion? Very strange. JPG-GR (talk) 15:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's a defunct radio station, it was moved to correct the name for consistency with WP:WPRS#Article_naming_conventions--Rtphokie (talk) 15:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~Must've missed when you made that change to the naming conventions.~~ You're misinterpreting the naming conventions because that change goes against the general naming conventions of Wikipedia - it's unnecessary disambiguation. JPG-GR (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep; That this station no longer exists, and how long this station has been off the air is irrelevant, as per WP:RECENTISM. It has as much notability as any other real radio station, which is enough to generally squeak in.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment looking closer at the article, the station doesn't seem very long lived. I find this a sufficient article, but if there's a good page to merge to, I wouldn't really object to merging it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The station is notable, FCC action has been ongoing even into 2008, and there is neither a useful article in which to merge this information nor any compelling reason to delete it. - Dravecky (talk) 07:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Can you be more specific in how the station is notable? This station has been off the air for years for unremarkable reasons (failed to file paperwork properly). I fail to see how this is notable. Radio stations generally get a wide berth when it comes to notability but this is pushing that a bit far.--Rtphokie (talk) 11:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Being off the air is not a valid reason to delete something. Recentism is bad; just because the station is currently off the air, doesn't in anyway change its notability.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question That answers why it shouldn't be deleted but I've still not seen any references that indicate it was notable just that it existed. --Rtphokie (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - A FCC-authorized radio station is notable by default.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply The station is notable in part because it was the subject of coverage in reliable secondary sources, including the 2008 news story referenced in the article. - Dravecky (talk) 01:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm confused - if an editor creates hundreds of radio station articles providing links to the FCC database as proof of notability, a station is notable. But, if an article already exists and has just as much proof of notability, it's not notable? JPG-GR (talk) 06:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - 'Comment' Let's focus on this article not the editors, shall we? Consensus currently says that articles based on radio stations are inherently notable based the local programming provided to the communities they serve and the availability verifiable proof that the stations exist like government databases. Should that extend to radio stations that no longer are on the air? That's what this AFD is answering. I personally don't care either way, delete it, keep it, whatever, let's be consistent in our treatment of these articles. I'm looking to see what the consensus is and for a precedent. Should we read this AFD as the new precedent being any radio station is notable if verifiable 3rd party references can be found that the station once existed?--Rtphokie (talk) 11:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - There's no need for precedent; it's clearly stated in the guidelines, notability is not temporary. Whether or not they're still on the air doesn't matter.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Question Did you just admit to violating WP:POINT? You don't care what the result is, you're just trying to set a precedent? JPG-GR (talk) 06:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment' I have no point to make, I just want to know what the consensus is on articles like this.--Rtphokie (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Update I have significantly expanded the article, added more references, and now feel confident that the article could be expanded even further. (There's far more history to mine from this article, for example.) This station had a 66-year history, was one of the oldest stations in Minnesota, and continues to receive coverage in reliable secondary sources as recently as a few weeks ago. - Dravecky (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thank you Dravecky. Miami33139 (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability has been proven. This whole "excercise" is rather WP:POINTy. JPG-GR (talk) 06:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn' per notability is not temporary thanks Prosfilaes for pointing that out, it answers the question here I think.--Rtphokie (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kane Louis[edit]

Article acknowledges player has made no professional competitive appearances, therefore fails WP:ATHLETE Kevin McE (talk) 12:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Kevin McE (talk) 12:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN per nom ("Kane is yet to play a first team game yet"). —97198 talk 14:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 16:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the reason given in the nomination, the subject clearly fails WP:ATHLETE. WilliamH (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails notability. --Jimbo^[online] 12:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to wikt:round tuit. - Philippe 03:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Round tuit[edit]

Declined PROD. Dictionary definition. Has been transwikied and deleted once before. Roleplayer (talk) 12:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: DictDef, recreated material, neologism. TallNapoleon (talk) 12:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You see I originally nominated it for deletion under recreated material but because the text says "It was previously deleted via a deletion discussion" I've had csd g4 requests declined in the past because the prior speedy wasn't the result of a discussion. This place is confusing. -- Roleplayer (talk) 12:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Soft redirect per Dhartung below. Not speedy, the deletion log shows this was previously deleted as an expired PROD, and the wording of WP:CSD#G4 excludes that - previous deletion must have been via a deletion discussion, i.e. AfD or similar. You're right, it's confusing - but ~~delete~~ soft redirect anyway, this is no more than a dicdef, it's already in Wiktionary, and it's a very old joke. JohnCD (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What a conundrum this one is. (1) This is a longstanding "meme" going back at least to the 1940s or before. (2) On the other hand, arguing keep on the basis of Wikipedia also having hundreds of articles on "lolcats" and "all your base are belong to us" and the like is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but (3) On yet the other hand, I don't think most of those rate articles either. (4) But yet again, deleting this while keeping all the Internet "meme" cruft would be a blatant example of WP:RECENT and systemic bias. I'm just going to sit this one out. KleenupKrew (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Get around to deleting it. It's not as if the article is ever going to expand past that one line definition. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and soft redirect to wikt:round tuit. This meets the criteria in WP:SRD. --Dhartung | Talk 20:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to wikt:round tuit per Dhartung. This should also discourage recreation of this wisp of an "article." B.Wind (talk) 05:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 19:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Kennedy (stripper)[edit]

May fail WP:BLP1E but also has multiple references over a period of time greater than a year and I am convinced more exist if you do a google news search. Ejk888 (talk) 11:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hmm-m, don't quite know what to say here. Fundamentally, still appears to be a BLP1E case. If the episode about his arrest and trial is notable, it is better to have a WP entry about that event (and merge this article there) rather than about this person. As it stands, does not seem to satisfy WP:BIO to me. Nsk92 (talk) 18:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. News coverage doesn't trump BLP. Just because the media wants to write sensationalist stories doesn't mean we need (or should have) an article on the person. At present, it's just a coatrack for an event of questionable notability. Bfigura ^(talk) 00:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Simple enough, really - Alison ^❤ 21:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's an amusing story, but it doesn't belong here. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep (non-admin closure). Settlements are inherently notable. WilliamH (talk) 21:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boungbale[edit]

unlinked disambig page page, orphaned, dead end – ThatWikiGuy (talk) 11:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you propose I create 3 different page names for three places within the same region and the same prefecture??? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 11:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there is a 4th level administrative division? I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 12:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there was I would find it and create useful pages instead. As for now I am forced to ignore settlements which have the same name and just add one of them because of this afd which is not right ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 12:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There should be some precedent, something like Village, Prefecture (disambiguating feature) where a name of a river or something could provide the distinction. --Dhartung | Talk 21:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then keep until ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ figures out a way. – ThatWikiGuy (talk) 14:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep settlements are inherently notable. Recommend withdrawal of nomination. EJF (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as per EJF. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 15:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, not a valid deletion rationale. If the other villages are deemed in need of pages some consensus for dealing with this can be forged. --Dhartung | Talk 21:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with List of recurring and minor Coronation Street characters. PeterSymonds (talk) 06:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Paige[edit]

Minor character who appeared a less than a month ago in the show (see WP:RECENTISM). Fails notability per WP:FICTION and WP:SOAPS. Article contains no real world information (only actor's name and first appearance on the show). There is no evidence that the character can play important role in the show. Prod was declined by unregistered user without giving a reason and without making any real changed to the article (he just added an unreferenced sentence). Magioladitis (talk) 10:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Because this is the third time in a short period that an unregistered user contests one of my prods without giving a reason and I notice that some registered users support it I want to remind that according to WP:PROD: "Editors should explain why they disagree with the proposed deletion". -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:FICT as the article does not indicate any real world notability.

Change to Keep After doing more research and looking those articles listed below i believe that this character has recicved suffecient real-world coverage to demonstrate notability of a character as per WP:FICT. And my understanding is that this character has potiental to recicve even more real-world coverage. Printer222 (talk) 11:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak ~~Support~~ Keep I have found some additional weak sources. It may be worth doing more looking into this character on something like Lexis Nexis as that could provide better quality sources. [39] [40] [41] Seddon69 (talk) 11:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The articles describe a clever plot turn. The character may develop to an important one. But right now there is not enough information to have an article for him. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Magioladitis (talk) 12:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge content to List of recurring and minor Coronation Street characters. Doesn't currently have sufficient notability to warrant own article, but has had some real world coverage, which is likely to increase as the character becomes more established in the show. Frickative (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Either Delete or Merge to List of recurring and minor Coronation Street characters. A new minor character that does not merit a separate WP entry at the moment. Nsk92 (talk) 18:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. We don't have enough material to support a seperate article right now. -- Nips (talk) 22:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 07:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge content to List of recurring and minor Coronation Street characters. an obvious home. TerriersFan (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul W. Fitzgerald[edit]

Biography of a businessman which fails to show any notability - supplied references are either self-published or tangental. Also possibly a crude vehicle to to promote sales of performance enhancing ~~drugs~~, correction, it's promoting an allegedly performance enhancing product, not a drug. nancy ^(talk) 08:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Reading University one of the world's top? It's No 25 in the UKTimesonline and also looking at the links to the article including accusations of failure under WP:COI. Also, I thought this article was speedied earlier this week, a repost? --Richhoncho (talk) 09:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete google search/news/scholar/books turns up nothing about himself or his work, as such I believe it fails human notability guidelines. It also my be worth noting that the original author of the article Herman555 (talk · contribs) has only 3 contributions, all of which were to the article in question, I smell a COI or hoax. Atyndall93 | talk 09:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Resume for non-notable businessman. KleenupKrew (talk) 09:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poorly sourced, no notability with only one source even confirming this man even exists. Google search seems to reveal no extra sources, not even weak sources except for this one which cant be confirmed to be the same person [42]. Seddon69 (talk) 11:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Resume for non-notable businessman. CEO of a non-notable company is not an assertion of notability. --Evb-wiki (talk) 11:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pure vanispamcruftisement created by a single-purpose account ... no WP:A to support WP:BIO notability ... Happy Editing! — 72.75.78.69 (talk · contribs) _{15:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)}[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pizzone[edit]

Non-notable food product. No sources or indications of notability. Is more of a neologism that should re-direct to Pizza Hut. MBisanz ^talk 08:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could find no hard sources on google. Seddon69 (talk) 11:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Anything that may be important should be merged to the pizza hut article. Not notable enough for its own article. AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not merit its own article and is already mentioned in Pizza Hut article, albeit without a proper reference. --Eustress
Speedy Delete. Isn't this already here under "P'zone" redirecting to "Calzone"? -- Dewelar (talk) 04:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Non-notable; any mention should remain as part of the Pizza Hut article. -- Mabisa (talk) 01:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per CSD:A7. Stifle (talk) 15:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Wonders of Europe[edit]

Ambitious photographic project. Dropped from later versions of the article is the launch date of 2008 May 8. Spam and crystal ballery. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Spam, not properly referenced. --Eustress (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 20:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite/Delete The subject seems to be notable, google search google brings up quite a lot of hits, but in its present state it is advertising and if not rewritten it should be deleted. Harland1 (^t/_c) 10:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment - maybe it should be deleted now and if after the launch it is notable then it could be recreated. Harland1 (^t/_c) 10:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but allow it to be recreated later. The current state of the article is pretty much advertising and not well referenced. This AfD shouldn't affect the result of the page being recreated later, however, since it might be notable. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 14:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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've initially put the redirect to modernist party but changed but I think it should be redirect at least somewhere as suggested in the AFD. Both of the ideas suggested seems to be good though but I will an editor to create the appropriate redirect link. --JForget 00:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Modern poetry[edit]

"These poetic writing techniques were devised by Khanh C. Du" in an article created by user:Kennethdu1. Pure original research. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to modernist poetry. --Dhartung | Talk 08:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 09:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect All is vanity. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure OR. I don't think that a redirect to modernist poetry is appropriate. Modernist poetry is a technical term that refers to a specific literary movement in early 20th century. "Modern poetry" is a colloquial term that refers to contemporary or recently written poetry of any kind. I think a redirect would actually be misleading here. Nsk92 (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I considered that (and I'm a Comp. Lit. minor with some poetry under my own belt), but we really don't have an appropriate article like that. The timeline of poetry articles are in pretty sorry shape, little more than navigation bingo boxes. Formal sources tend to eschew terms like "modern poetry" nowadays because the term has become so associated with the period of modernism. --Dhartung | Talk 21:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I think that a plain Delete with no redirects is better in this case. Nsk92 (talk) 21:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.

Vociferous tachometer

Splice verses of valor

Zealous uplifters

Icy thunder-shower does tinder yonder

My god, we have a new McGonagall among us! Quaere, do we have an article on contemporary poetry? (Guess not) If so, disambiguation might be the best thing here. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't doggerel-like enough to be McGonagall. More like Ted Hughes. All this and no formal training?:) Do you think he will be headhunted by a prestigious publishing company, such as lulu? Merkin's mum 20:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to history of poetry. That article's section on "Modern developments" is not very good, but it seems a more appropriate target than modernist poetry. EALacey (talk) 23:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete with no redirect. Original research, nonsense, and blatant self-advertising. Note the article's creator is User:Kennethdu1. Khanh C. Du (the 'poet' in this artcle) is Kenneth Khanh Du. The article here is a verbatim copy from Kenneth Khanh Du's entry at ifp.org The other WP article by User:Kennethdu1, which was speedily deleted as "patent nonsense" (and rightly so) was Composite scena, another 'brainchild' of Kenneth Khanh Du (aka Khanh C. Du). See his other entry at ifp.org. Voceditenore (talk) 08:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Further note: His CV on ifp.org is here. There's a list of his other 'products' on offer (some of which are quite disturbing) here. (Click on the links). Be prepared for related articles possibly appearing on WP.Voceditenore (talk) 08:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete rather than redirect. This is about the article author's stuff which is non-notable. Merkin's mum 20:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by / madness, starving hysterical naked, dragging themselves through the AfD discussions of non-notable articles / looking for an angry fix..." Ecoleetage (talk) 02:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per G1 – Patent Nonsense « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 07:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick cash for kids[edit]

This reads like an essay of some sort. I don't see the encyclopedic value of this article. Gary King (talk) 07:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research and HowTo. --Deadly∀ssassin 07:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Waggers (talk) 12:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filament (astronomy)[edit]

Redundant since Filament exists as a disambig page. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Berig (talk) 07:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, duplicate subset of Filament. AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Merenta (talk) 02:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Histmerge with galaxy filament. This _cannot_ be deleted because user:Smack did a cut-and-paste move & rewrite of the contents in 2006. The article history remains at filament (astronomy), with the intervening rewrite at Filament (cosmology). 70.55.88.176 (talk) 04:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done the histmerge. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - no evidence of notability. Wily D 14:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marc With a C[edit]

Asserts per WP:MUSIC, but it is unsourced, and I cannot find a reliable source to put it to on Google (only the band's own site says it). If that was cited approprately per WP:RS then that would be ok, I would say. asenine ^{say what?} 06:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of sources. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 06:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:BIO and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Evenson[edit]

~~Porn star~~Nude model (correction) that fails to meet criteria. Sorry. Wikipedia is not a telephone directory. JerryVanF (talk) 06:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See here for a discussion regarding this AfD and its previous speedy non-admin closures. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete JerryVanF (talk) 06:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added comment: How about Hustler or Penthouse's monthly model? Or Jet magazines bikini girl? Being a model in a magazine does not establish notability. Sorry. JerryVanF (talk) 04:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Penthouse is covered by PORNBIO. Hustler isn't as it doesn't have the respect and visibility among the general public as Playboy and to a lesser extent Penthouse. As for the Jet bikini magazine, how does that fall under PORNBIO? Tabercil (talk) 07:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close no rationale given; notability seems to be there. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 06:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that there are navboxes listing every Playmate of the Month (eg. Template:Playmates of 2003) seems to say that that position has been deemed notable by the wikipedia community. -Icewedge (talk) 06:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is established, recommended speed close. Harland1 (^t/_c) 06:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The nomination should be withdrawn.--Berig (talk) 06:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Needs to be withdrawn, asserts notability. asenine ^{say what?} 08:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let's be realistic. Playmate of the Month is notable. DGG (talk) 03:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Playmate of the Month is notable. Dismas|^(talk) 03:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided. Seems like should be notable, but after re-reading WP:BIO a couple of times I don't see exactly why the subject is notable in this particular case. Presumably the Playboy issue in question contained some sort of biographical data but does that really qualify as in-depth coverage? Were there interviews with her in other magazines/media? If yes, which ones and when? Are there any other reliable sources that covered her? Again, presumably the answer should be yes, but one still would like to see some of them. If there aren't other sources, why isn't this a BLP1E case? Nsk92 (talk) 03:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, exactly, this person is covered more than enough by just listing her at the Playmate article --Enric Naval (talk) 03:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking at Wikipedia:PEOPLE#Pornographic_actors, it lists receiving an award from Playboy as a reason to assert notability. however being Playmate of the Month is not an award by any standard. All these persons are already listed at Playmate, and many of these person's articles should be deleted, like Lesa_Ann_Pedriana who has even less assertion of notability than this person. Saying that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not an argument to keep an article. This article fails notability on its own and ought to be deleted. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't think she was ever a pornographic actress, so this section of WP:BIO would not apply anyway. Nsk92 (talk) 03:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The language is less than clear, but the intent of the reference to Playboy and Penthouse was to specifically cover the designation of Playmate and Pet, respectively. After all, I can't think of any other "award" which would come from these two magazines which would be specific for PORNBIO.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabercil (talk • contribs)

Playboy gives other sort of awards and calls them awards (I made a short list on one of my comments). The language says "awards", and Playboy doesn't call Playmate of the Month/Year an award, and doesn't call Playmate chosen models "award winners" --Enric Naval (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wasn't sure before, but now it seems clear to me that there's no reason for this person to have an article. She's just a model who posed for Playboy. So Playboy designated her a "Playmate of the Month" -- she's still just a model with no objective third-party mention (at least none shown yet). Equazcion •✗/C • 03:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Award of "playmate of the month" asserts strong notability to me, considering the publication which gives it is one with extremely high readership and penetration. Beyond that, no rationale provided for deletion. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Heh. 'Penetration'. (Yeah, yeah. I'm sorry.) HalfShadow 04:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damn perverts. :P Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dammit, I missed that one. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable person. ➪HiDrNick! 03:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Dismas|^(talk) 04:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Playboy's designation of a given model as Playmate confers a fair degree of visibility and notoriety in and by itself. Tabercil (talk) 07:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable in and of itself, any more than e.g. some food magazine's "Dessert of the Month" which we don't consider notable enough for an article either. John Darrow (talk) 08:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 09:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She actually passes WP:BIO under a couple criteria:

There is the first bullet point under WP:PORNBIO which states Has won or been a serious nominee for a well-known award. If PotM isn't a notable award, why do we have an article for it?
If you say that a PotM isn't a good enough award but PotY is, then she is still notable since she is "a serious nominee" as is every PotM.
Both of those points are further reinforced by the "Any biography" section of WP:BIO, specifically The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them. Again, both PotM and PotY are notable awards and this woman as well as every other PotM has won PotM and therefore nominated for PotY. Dismas|^(talk) 09:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Playmate of the Month's designation as an "award" is very questionable. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I state below, not even Playmate of the Year is an actual award, even if some call it like that --Enric Naval (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between "of the month" and "of the year" in Playboy's case is that the Playmate of the Year is chosen from a pool of possible contenders (the various playmates of the month in that year). Playmate of the Month is just Playboy's name for the model they're featuring in a given month. The Playmate of the Month hasn't actually "won" any contest or beaten out other competitors. They're two completely different designations that mean two very different things. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's no trophy or anything but to say that they don't "win" anything is not entirely accurate. Lots of women send in their photos in the hopes of becoming a PotM. To say that they haven't beaten out other competitors is incorrect. Dismas|^(talk) 12:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no public list of contenders, though. As someone else pointed out, saying Playmate of the Month is notable in itself is like saying Recipe of the Month is notable. People sending things in to a magazine in the hopes that they'll be chosen as that month's feature isn't winning an award. It's just getting featured. Again, Playboy might assign terminology to this that makes it sound like an award that people win, but it's really not. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete zero independent reliable sources cited. WP:BIO and derivatives are inclusion guidelines that indicate the type of person who will usually have sufficient independent coverage to allow a policy-compliant article. An indication that the person is likely to have such coverage, is not in and of itself evidence of such coverage. We cannot have a policy-compliant biography of a living individual without non-trivial independent sources even if they have appeared on the front cover of Melons Monthly or whatever. Guy (Help!) 11:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Needs to meet notability guidelines per WP:BIO and needs independent, reliable, and verifiable sourcing per WP:BLP. his article does not have it. --NonvocalScream (talk) 14:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Playboy does give out actual awards:

"Playboy is awarding the basketball star its annual Anson Mount Scholar/Athlete Award, which presents $5,000 to the general scholarship fund of a student-athlete who excels in the classroom and on the court."[43]
"National News Briefs; High School Refuses $5,000 Playboy Award"[44] (frigging NYT source, this is what a real source looks like)
"The Cadillac Escalade had just won the Playboy 2007 Car of the Year Award (...) a golden trophy with a totally blinged-out Playboy bunny glued to it and a discreet plaque proclaiming Escalade's win"[45], official award list on Playboy website[46]
"Playboy awards BioShock its game of the year accolade"[47]

most articles on Playmate of the Month "winners" should be nominated individually to evaluate notability of each one of them per separate. Some of them could be salvaged, and other surely belong to people who are actually notable by wikipedia standards --Enric Naval (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

curious. some of these are exactly the sort of non-notable award that doesnt count. On the other hand, PoM is what the publication made its reputation with. DGG (talk) 01:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm don't see how that's relevant. Just because a company made their reputation by doing this means it establishes notability? If YouTube established its reputation by featuring fat guys sitting in their chairs at home taping themselves lip-syncing and dancing (not that they necessarily did, but as an example), would that establish notability for a person too? I think our standards are a little more stringent than that. Playmate of the Month similarly isn't objective mention, regardless of how much that feature helped Playboy gain notoriety. . Equazcion •✗/C • 02:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That assumes the decision is delete. I know this isn't a democracy, but the tally right now runs roughly 11-7 in favour of keeping. My guess right now is (barring any great changes) that the closing decision will be no consensus, which pretty much defaults to a decision to keep. Tabercil (talk) 22:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please notice that altought some pages say "Playboy Playmate of the Year Award"[48], Playboy itself doesn't mention it anywhere as an actual award, and it only says that it gives prizes to the girls chosen as Playmate of the Year, so it wouldn't pass WP:PORNBIO because it's *not* an award (please provide sources from Playbot itself saying that it's an award). Notice the Playboy's page about choosing Playmates[49], being a Playmate is just a model job. They should all be listed on the Playmate page unless they are notable of their own. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Arguing whether PotM is or is not an "award" is splitting semantic hairs. Regardless of that, it's a high-profile acheivement in entertainment that makes the playmate presumptively notable. (That said, I'm startled that no one's voted "keep per WP:HOTTIE.") —Quasirandom (talk) 22:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oooo... wish I had known about that when I first made my decision to keep. <G> Tabercil (talk) 22:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Playmate of the Month is notable. Notability is asserted but does need to be referenced. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:HOTTIE. I'll bite. That said, the core of Playboy's notability is the PotM, the interviews we all 'really read it for', and the joie di vivre men vicariously experience by looking through it. The most quanitfiable and identifiable of those is the playmate, and to suggest that it's thoroughly non-notable is prudish, among other problems. Finally, I note that in this case, the person also had some acting jobs, expanding the possible baseline for her notability, and pushing for at the least, case-by-case evaluation of PotMs.ThuranX (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability is asserted per the Playboy mention and others. Sources, obviously, should be added if found (the article currently being unsourced does not mean it can't be sourced). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why just this one, out of the hundreds of Playmate articles? Nominator's article as a "~~porn star~~adult model" is superficial and is reminiscent of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 17:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus; default to KEEP. - Philippe 03:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buffalo Speedway[edit]

Looks like just a typical city street in Houston, albeit one with a sort of out-of-the-ordinary name. However, there's nothing on Google to show any sort of history that could lead to notability for this street, and nothing particularly notable about it now. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If this ends in favor of delete, could this be a redirect to Houston, Texas? WhisperToMe (talk) 04:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see why it couldn't be. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is now a lot more cited, verifiable information on the page. If this is deleted, the contents need to be preserved somewhere. Note that most of the comments below were made before cites were added. Novasource (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the two sources added are the same ones as were discussed below. Jakew (talk) 15:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see that now. I came across them doing a Google search for "buffalo speewday". Novasource (talk) 16:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More improvements made. Novasource (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It seems more likely to me, although not certain at all, that the original speedway could be notable. As it is, well, many streets have cute stories about how they were named, and a great many of them are named after things they were adjacent to that no longer exist. --Dhartung | Talk 06:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - this is a major street through 3 cities, West University Place, Bellaire, and Houston. I have seen it. I have not seen this article but the subject is so strong that it deserves an article. WP policy is to judge the notability and not even consider if the article has crappy writing, not that it does or doesn't. JerryVanF (talk) 06:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because a street goes through 3 cities doesn't make it notable. Notability can be construed in two ways. 1) "Worthy of note" (aka its claim to fame, or the reason it's important): What makes Buffalo Speedway distinguishable from Reno Avenue in Oklahoma City/Del City/Midwest City, or any of the arterials that run through the dozens of Kansas City suburbs, or the even (geographically) tinier suburbs of St. Louis? Also, TxDOT apparently doesn't concur with your assessment that the street is that major, or they would have recognized it by assigning at least a FM or UR designation to it. Also, while it may be important to the local region, it has little to no importance outside of that region. Main Street in little Washington, Oklahoma is certainly important to that town's residents, but we shouldn't have an article on it. Why? Because it simply doesn't leave an impact on anyone outside of that community. Same for this road: it has little or no impact outside the Houston area, which is evident when we examine... 2) The Wikipedia version of notability: WP:N: coverage in reliable secondary sources. All the hits that I can get off of Google are mere travel directions or addresses. No sources that discuss the road itself. Thus it fails WP:N's threshold of inclusion and should be deleted. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:N. Two Houston Chronicle articles have in-depth coverage of the history (alleged or real) of this street [50][51] and the latter makes reference to a book called Historic Houston Streets: The Stories Behind the Names which appears to give non-"passing mention" coverage to it as well. --Oakshade (talk) 07:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So the name has history. That doesn't address the street as it stands now though — what makes this street important enough that we should have an encyclopedia article on it? —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The first story says there was no speedway (there goes my suggestion) and that it was named because the street itself was used for informal drag racing. The second says nobody knows for sure. This really doesn't seem to pass WP:V let alone WP:N. --Dhartung | Talk 22:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're speaking of a content issue, not a WP:N one. Even that there's controversy as to why it has its name, it's still the subject of reliable secondary sources. Even hoaxes and other enigmas pass WP:N if they're the subject of secondary sources. --Oakshade (talk) 01:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it passes WP:N doesn't mean we should have an article on it. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly doesn't pass WP:N just because it's been written about twice. Only its name has been discussed, and there is no assertion of significance of the road itself. --Dhartung | Talk 06:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless you can figure out a good alternate location for the information in the article. Novasource (talk) 21:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. The article now has citations, and its notability is enhanced by its unique name. Novasource (talk) 14:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources cited might pass the bare minimum test of notability, but ultimately it's a street, and the real question is: what makes this street, of all the millions of streets in the world, sufficiently special that it needs to have an encyclopaedia article about it? The answer, as far as I can tell from reading the article, is nothing. Hence, it isn't notable. Jakew (talk) 21:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources attesting to the street's notability. Should any street be in Wikipedia? If not, then this should be deleted. How important is this street? In my opinion, it is in the top 2% of streets in Houston as far as notability. So that's why I support a "keep". If you want to restrict it even further and say only the top 5 streets of any big city may be included, that's different.JerryVanF (talk) 02:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why should anyone outside of Houston care about this street? —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:IDONTCARE and WP:UNKNOWNHERE arguments are not useful criterion in deciding inclusion. --Oakshade (talk) 04:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's where you're wrong. They are. Obviously, we cannot have articles on all city streets in all cities. What makes this one significant enough that anyone outside of Houston would find the need to look up this information? **What makes this street important enough outside Houston to justify this street's inclusion in this encyclopedia? Nobody has happened to answer this question yet, and I suspect because it's impossible to answer. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

see ** above. I do not live in Houston or even Texas. JerryVanF (talk) 04:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is that relevant? We still need to show that this street is of more than local importance. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to point out all the keep votes have been variations of WP:LOCALFAME and WP:IKNOWIT. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're just giving your subjective opinion on what is of significance to readers. How do you know people outside of Houston have no interests in its streets? I personally read articles of localities and their attributes all the time with great interest. I know for a fact many others do. With entirely subjective criteria like "do people outside of a locality care?" that is impossible to answer, Wikipedia has created specific standards as to what it considers notable. The core standard is a topic being the subject of independent secondary sources. There is absolutely no "Even if something passes notability guidlines, Wikipedia thinks people outside of a certain area won't care" clause anywhere in Wikipedia policies or guidelines. (The WP:LOCALFAME and WP:IKNOWIT arguments you referenced applies to articles that do not pass WP:N unlike this article, ie "John is the tallest person in my home town so should have an article about him.") If you want to change WP:N to include a "People outside a certain area won't care" clause, you need to make you case on the guidelines talk pages, not on specific articles. --Oakshade (talk) 06:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you are talking about a) don't agree, b) consider their own sources contradictory and dubious, c) discuss nothing about the street but the name. How is that significant coverage? I certainly don't agree that this passes notability standards, thus I think WP:LOCAL is an entirely valid objection. --Dhartung | Talk 06:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Houston Chronicle is a reliable source. I've seen many users try to use the fallacious "Yeah, the New York Times might have written about, but their sources are unreliable" argument when wanting to delete an article, but of course its inherently flawed as Wikipedia:Reliable sources refers to the actual publisher of content, not whatever their sources are. That they reported that the source of the name of this street is in question, makes it still notable by Wikipedia guidelines. Bigfoot is an invention of dubious sources and probably such a creature doesn't exist, but that fact that the media has reported on it makes it notable. --Oakshade (talk) 06:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of bigfoot, that article cites some 41 sources which do constitute significant coverage, so it's a poor comparison. In the case of this article, that significant coverage simply doesn't exist, as Dhartung notes. I would say that the only way one could argue that these two sources constitute evidence of notability is if one treats WP:N as a minimal checklist to be blindly followed, and that is not the intent of that guideline. Jakew (talk) 13:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Based on the article as written, it does not establish notability. If someone has sources and the street is truly notable, then they can write a new, properly cited and sourced, article. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to efforts to improve the article during the discussion. Good job! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep not just for reasons stated previously by others but also because I live on the other side of the country from this thoroughfare and have heard about it, so it's not strictly of local interest only. And for that matter, Wikipedia would be nothing but porn if content was restricted to subjects that only held majority interest. ;-) --BRossow (talk) 18:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. No deletion recommendations made. Several suggestions that a discussion of a merge to Duval County Public Schools be conducted were made. (Non-Admin closure) Collectonian (talk) 06:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Weldon Johnson Middle School[edit]

Non-notable educational institution Ecoleetage (talk) 02:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Normally, I would have no objection to merging the article into the relevant school district, Duval County Public Schools. However, the district has over 150 schools. I found three articles on Google News. There are other schools named after James Weldon Johnson in New York City and Chicago, and probably elsewhere as well.--Eastmain (talk) 03:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 03:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Duval County Public Schools per usual practice. Mentioning which schools are Magnet schools would be a perfectly encyclopaedic addition to that page without overbalancing it. TerriersFan (talk) 03:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per TerriersFan. If need be, someday break-out articles could be made on Duval County Public Schools. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per TerriersFan. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep. Found a source that cites this school as an example of "best practices." 69.140.152.55 (talk) 07:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - nice research; the full report is here. TerriersFan (talk) 15:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change to keep - being cited by a state education department as being an example of best practice, particularly in difficult circumstances, is certainly a statement of notability. TerriersFan (talk) 01:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TF. The new information is quite a compelling argument for the notability of the school. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2004 Golden Martin Awards[edit]

Non-notable movie awards (who ever heard of a film industry function held in a high school?) Ecoleetage (talk) 02:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no apparent route to notability and no sources. Closer than it would like to something made up in school one day. --Dhartung | Talk 06:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Held in a high school? TallNapoleon (talk) 12:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No third-party sources indicating notability of high school's awards. --Eustress (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely unverifiable, let alone notable. Nothing whatsoever in Google News. I have a feeling that this may actually be something made up in school one day... Jakew (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an outstanding example of why we have WP:MADEUP. No sourcing and no notability. Bfigura ^(talk) 00:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP. High school awards? Gravy! Man you're finding all the good ones today :P AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A high school award is obviously non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus; default to KEEP. - Philippe 03:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Airlines fleet[edit]

AfDs for this article:

As the consensus on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virgin America fleet indicates, there is no basis for sprawling registration lists. Furthermore, the content of this fleet page (the primary contents being the first two tables) can easily be integrated into the main Singapore Airlines fleet page, just like every other airline page on Wikipedia. This page has gone through 2 AfDs, both were inconclusive. However, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virgin Atlantic Airways Fleet and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virgin America fleet indicate a strong consensus within the community that the registration tables are irrelevant. Wikipedia is not an aviation enthusiast website and is not an indiscriminate repository of information. There is nothing significant or special about Singapore Airlines that warrants a special fleet pages (using page length of Singapore Airlines as a reason isn't sufficient, especially when it is in dire need of cleanup. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 02:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary Despite being the one that nominated this page for AfD, my vote is actually more a combination of Merge and Delete. To retate my point in a more concise manner, I feel that the first two tables should be merged into the main SQ page as those two tables are actually relevant and useful (just the way the equivalent of those two tables for other airlines are on those airlines' pages) while the long sprawling tables be deleted per WP:AIRLINES' consensus (as well as a consensus in regards to registration number tables established in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virgin America fleet‎ and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virgin Atlantic Airways Fleet‎). Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 19:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Understanding the fleet operated by an airline contributes to a better understanding of the airline, particularly when it relies heavily on a single model or manufacturer, or is a launch customer for a particular model. In this case, Singapore Airlines is the launch customer for the Airbus A380-800. Retaining the fleet listing is also helpful in case one of the aircraft is involved in an incident and people search for the registration number. --Eastmain (talk) 02:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Incidents are usually documented on the airline's page or on a separate page if it's notable enough, and registration numbers can be documented. It makes it easier to acquire the registration number. By your reasoning, every airline should have such an extensive registration list (which WP:AIRLINES had previously established a consensus against having in the past already), but no such lists exist for other airlines. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 03:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need lists of fleets by registration numbers? Why is listing fleets by individual aircraft provide a better understanding then simply by the number of a specific type? Why do you need a fleet page to deal with accidents and incidents? Vegaswikian (talk) 04:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? The fact that most airlines do not have this "list" (yet) is not a valid justification for not taking this approach. Regards, DPdH (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that 2 AfDs for articles based on long lists of registrations reached a consensus of delete shows that some airlines have had such lists but the community agreed that such lists ought to be deleted. Furthermore, your argument was used in previous AfDs, and such lists have never become widespread, destroying any basis for your argument. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 06:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 02:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 02:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful information, well-written article. JIP | Talk 04:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USEFUL (something straight from Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions). Care to elaborate? Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 04:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with JIP, information should be kept, ideally in a separate article so the main one regarding the airline is not confusing. DPdH (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary There are plenty of keeps in TWO previous AFD's. Is this AFD just an edit war or sour grapes? Is this a ploy to destroy information. You know darn well that putting those huge charts in the other article will eventually result in deleting the huge charts. As far as voting, I abstain because I don't know enough about the topic to say but I do know enough about human politics to see trouble (such as multiple AFD attempts and suggesting merging that beast of a chart). JerryVanF (talk) 06:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In fairness, those ended in no consensus, so it's not really a bad idea to re-AfD and see if a consensus either way can be reached. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 06:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the tables that I feel ought to be retained are the ones that don't have the long list of registrations (the first two tables). The long sprawling tables ought to be deleted. For those long sprawling lists, WP:AIRLINES already has a consensus against their retention (however, some editors feel their opinion overrides the consensus of the community). For the first two, smaller tables, they're included in the main pages for pretty much every other airline. Looking in the forst two AfDs, the reasons to keep are all based on "the potential to expand this article and make similar articles for other airlines". Neither of the two happened. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 06:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nominator makes it clear in his comments that he doesn't actually want this material to be deleted. He is trying to use AFD to pursue a content dispute and this won't do. Also, the topic is clearly notable, per the many sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How am I pursuing a content dispute? WP:AIRLINES and the provided AfDs have provided a clear consensus against the bulk of this page's content and against the first two tables being in a separate page. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are pursuing a content dispute because it seems that what bothers you is the format and some of the details of this article. Previous AFDs have kept the article and so their precedents are against you. WP:AIRLINES is a project not a policy or guideline and so has no standing here, whether you accurately represent it or not. No particular editor or group of editors controls airline articles per WP:OWN. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the two AfDs that I had provided links to (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virgin Atlantic Airways Fleet and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virgin America fleet) where a consensus was actually reached, as well as consensuses that had been established prior in regards to such articles. There is a consensus in the community in regards to how articles such as this article should he handled. The previous two AfDs reached no consensus, and admins that closed them said that they are not to be cited in future AfDs. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 00:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually had a consensus then you could merge the material without deletion being required. There is a merge proposal active and you yourself wish to retain material from this article. The AFD proposal is therefore redundant and should be speedily closed. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete List of arguemetns:

There is consensus at WP:AIRLINES wikiproject that it's not necessary to have a table with every single plane on the fleet. Notice how the table even lists what route they make, so that info has to be updated every time that the plane is re-assigned to a different route. Notice from Wikipedia:AIRLINES#Tagging_and_assessment "Tables should not include individual aircraft tail numbers unless they have encyclopedic value", so the long tables on the fleet article ought to go because they don't assert any encyclopedic value.
There are also verifiability problems: where the heck do they obtain those long lists from? Is it really a worthy investment of time of editors to update a very long list of irrelevant data that they must be copying from somewhere else?
Size concerns. Once you take that info out, only two tables remain, with no sources to assert notability of this fleet. Also Singapore_Airlines#Fleet is already longer than what would be left on the article, so it was not a split for size reasons. Looking at the links, it seems that this article is being used mainly to offload the long unnecesary tables to list every plane on their fleet, so it's just a silly fork so completionists can list every single irrelevant detail that they can.
using arguments from the 3 AfDs for other fleets. Notice the consensus at the other AfDs for articles on fleets of other airlines, which indicates that this article should have some remarkable characteristic that distinguishes it from them, or otherwise the same arguments from those AfDs must apply, even if those arguments are not repeated here, the articles are so similar on topic that the closing admin should take the same arguments into account when making his decision.
Consensus for deletion. Notice that consensus has clearly changed, the second AfD for this article closed as "no consensus" on October 2007, but the 3 AfDs for other fleet article closed all on May 2008 with clear consensus to delete and citing arguments on how WP:AIRLINES has finally decided that the long tables on those articles are not necessary (and those long tables are the only reason not to merge back into the article).
maintenance problem. Also notice that the fleet by itself is non-notable, that it will have less eyes into it that the airline article itself, and that unnecessary effort is being spent on keeping synchronized this article and the fleet section on the airline article.
standard reasons. WP:LISTCRUFT the article is listing all planes on the fleet for the sake of it, including irrelevant difficult-to-keep-up-to-date details, and no encyclopedic value is given. Also, this list will get outdated on a few year's time and will lose all value, but real notability does not diminish with time, which means that this list is not really notable.
Strength of argument: keep votes (at the time of this post) give no real reasons backed by policy

So, delete the long tables, and either merge what's left or perform a real split for size concerns, taking out all the fleet details from the airlines article. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is amusing that you should belabour the point of size at such length. Note that the main Singapore Airlines article currently exceeeds our guidelines, being some 89K, and so there is a need for spinout articles such as this one. The exact content of the fleet article and its maintenance is a matter of content editing not deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Airlines is also in dire need of cleanup. There are financial data that have no basis for inclusion, and there is a lot of fluff. Size is not a valid reason for a spin-off, it's a valid reason for a clean-up. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 06:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are many topics which require multiple articles to cover them fully. Even if this topic can be condensed into a single article, you should do this first through the normal editing/merger process per the existing merge proposal. AFD is a blunt instrument which is neither necessary nor appropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the edit history of Singapore Airlines, you'll see editors making changes, only to have them reverted by a particular editor. You'll also notice only one editor responded to the merger proposal. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 07:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The edit history will also clearly show that just one editor was repeatedly attempting to delete content, which several editors have restored, and even updated the restored content to boot in the meantime.--Huaiwei (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, the actions of you and those editors go against various consensuses within the community. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which community do you refer to, and do this community have any greater leverage that those in the edit history page?--Huaiwei (talk) 21:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:AIRLINES community, a community of editors that edit websites pertaining to airlines. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does this community include editors of the disputed article?--Huaiwei (talk) 21:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Singapore Airlines fleet is within the scope of WikiProject Aviation, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to aviation." Straight from the talkpage. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 21:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Enric Naval. If there is any notable information from the article that needs to be merged into the Singapore Airlines article as outlined by the nominator, than it should be done so. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Enric Naval. The only item which needs to be merged is the historical fleet information, without registrations, etc. I do feel that opinions stating that this information is needed to have a better understanding of the airlines history, fleet and operations are somewhat erroneous, and I will use an argument I have used in the past to demonstrate this. Aeroflot was once the world's largest airline, at any one stage operating many thousands of passenger aircraft, cargo aircraft, agricultural aircraft, medivac aircraft, helicopters, military transports, etc, etc. Since the dissolution of the USSR Aeroflot is a much smaller airline. If the "better understanding" reasoning is used for Aeroflot as it is often used for Singapore Airlines, what is stopping an article on the entire full historical fleet of Aeroflot being created by utilising several sources, including this one; that article would have to cover hundreds of wikipedia sub-articles to include the tens upon tens of thousands of aircraft that Aeroflot has operated over its entire existence since 1923. The only thing this article would demonstrate is that Aeroflot used to operate a hell of a lot of aircraft. I would stand somewhat firm in my opinion that there are only 2 airlines in the course of history which have truly notable fleets; those airlines being Aeroflot and Pan Am; and this is evident by the sheer number of books which have been written just on those 2 airlines' fleets, such as this, this, this, this, this; this doesn't touch on Russian language books of which I know hundreds can be found via sources such as the National Library of Russia. Pick a Soviet aircraft design bureau, Tupolev, Antonov, Kamov, Yakovlev, Ilyushin, Beriev, Lisunov, etc, and pick any civilian aircraft amongst them, and Aeroflot would have been the launch customer, so I feel that the justification that Singapore Airlines was the launch customer of the A380 is showing a somewhat recentism bias; plus every aircraft has a launch customer, we don't need full fleet listings based upon the criteria of them launching a single aircraft. Spotters might find the information useful, but this is not an airline enthusiast website; there are many of us who are airline enthusiasts on wikipedia, but we are helping to build an encyclopaedia, not an aircraft registration database, and that in my belief is not encyclopaedic. --Россавиа ^Диалог 19:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I note with a fair level of alarm that information related to Aeroflot "are somewhat erroneous", and I do wonder if you are expediting any effort to correct them. That said, could you explain in some detail how those "errors" are relevant to the information now existing in this article, and if there are any actual errors, to point them out for correction? Could you also explain to use how this supposed "inability" to write an "accurate" article for Aeroflot by in any way detrimental to the existance of an article for any other airline, and if we use precedents as an argument in AfD votes?--Huaiwei (talk) 19:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject matter is non-notable. Yilloslime (t) 22:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Merge and cleanup discussions should not be on AfD. The fleet itself is notable (whichever article it is in.) Even if it is merged, the history and a redirect should be kept. The debate is only about whether the roster of individual aircraft should be included, not article deletion. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on the two just closed AfDs for Virgin America fleet and Virgin Atlantic Airways Fleet. The summary material can be added back into the main article. A problem with this is that the SIA article is much larger then the last two, so moving any of this information back into the main article will increase its size problems, so I'm not comfortable with my position. Maybe by restoring some of this material in a reduced form to the main article, someone will be able to find a way to split out a larger chunk of the material to an article that does not violate community consensus and makes everyone happy. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The SQ article is in need of clean-up at any rate; size matters can be taken care of in that process, under the assumption that mediation ever gets started. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 08:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Per Colonel Warden --Firefly322 (talk) 01:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep --JForget 00:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muertos Vivos[edit]

Per WP:Music: All articles on albums or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines. Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage. Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Just because there's no independent coverage present doesn't mean that none exists at all. Even if this were a permanent stub, "merge" does not mean "take to AfD". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep I fully agree with TenPoundHammer. This article is clearly within the scope of Wikipedia, and I see no reason why we shouldn't allow it to exist as a stub. The fact that one band's entire discography was suddenly nominated for deletion, leads me to believe there may be a little more to this nomination than what meets the eye... and I simply do not support deletion for recreational purposes. -- WikHead (talk) 22:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I tihnk LegoTech has either lost his mind, or hasn't even read WP:Music, because this is clearly notable enough. It's had coverage in the media, becuase they had an interview with GOB on the French MTV i think. This in no way comes close to failing WP:Music [The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 20:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kept (non-admin closure). This is clearly going to snow, and as is stated, "if the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." WilliamH (talk) 12:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too Late... No Friends[edit]

Per WP:Music: All articles on albums or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines. Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage. Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Just because there's no independent coverage present doesn't mean that none exists at all. Even if this were a permanent stub, "merge" does not mean "take to AfD". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This is where you take articles to get deleted, not merged. A merge can be discussed at the talk page of the relevant article. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 11:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as per above. Too WP:POINTy. I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 11:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep--JForget 00:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foot in Mouth Disease[edit]

Per WP:Music: All articles on albums or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines. Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage. Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Just because there's no independent coverage present doesn't mean that none exists at all. Even if this were a permanent stub, "merge" does not mean "take to AfD". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep I fully agree with TenPoundHammer. This article is clearly within the scope of Wikipedia, and I see no reason why we shouldn't allow it to exist as a stub. The fact that one band's entire discography was suddenly nominated for deletion, leads me to believe there may be a little more to this nomination than what meets the eye... and I simply do not support deletion for recreational purposes. -- WikHead (talk) 22:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I think LegoTech either really doesn't like GOB or he hasn't even read WP:Music, because this is a notable album, by a notable artist. He's tagges almost every GOB related article for AFD, wouldn't that be abusing your rights to edit wikipedia?[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 20:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snowball Keep - I'm hesitating to say per bad faith nomination looking at the string's of AFD but album clearly deserves an article--JForget 00:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How Far Shallow Takes You[edit]

Per WP:Music: All articles on albums or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines. Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage. Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Just because there's no independent coverage present doesn't mean that none exists at all. Even if this were a permanent stub, "merge" does not mean "take to AfD". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep album by a notable band on a notable label. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable album by a notable group. Should be marked as unsourced. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 19:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep I fully agree with TenPoundHammer. This article is clearly within the scope of Wikipedia, and I see no reason why we shouldn't allow it to exist as a stub. The fact that one band's entire discography was suddenly nominated for deletion, leads me to believe there may be a little more to this nomination than what meets the eye... and I simply do not support deletion for recreational purposes. -- WikHead (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I think LegoTech either really doesn't like GOB or he hasn't even read WP:Music, because this is a notable album, by a notable artist. He's tagges almost every GOB related article for AFD, wouldn't that be abusing your rights to edit wikipedia?[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 20:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Legotech may need an editing suspension. OOODDD (talk) 13:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep --JForget 00:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World According to Gob[edit]

Per WP:Music: All articles on albums or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines. Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage. Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Just because there's no independent coverage present doesn't mean that none exists at all. Even if this were a permanent stub, "merge" does not mean "take to AfD". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep album by a notable band on a notable label. That meets two criterion of WP:MUSIC, doesn't it? Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep I fully agree with TenPoundHammer. This article is clearly within the scope of Wikipedia, and I see no reason why we shouldn't allow it to exist as a stub. The fact that one band's entire discography was suddenly nominated for deletion, leads me to believe there may be a little more to this nomination than what meets the eye... and I simply do not support deletion for recreational purposes. -- WikHead (talk) 22:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I think LegoTech either really doesn't like GOB or he hasn't even read WP:Music, because this is a notable album, by a notable artist. He's tagges almost every GOB related article for AFD, wouldn't that be abusing your rights to edit wikipedia?[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 20:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect into Muertos Vivos until the single receives coverage independent of the album. seresin ( ¡? ) 08:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're All Dying[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/We're All Dying

per WP:Music

Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Or at least merge into the album. This song is NN. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The most recent single by a notable band?! it's had plenty of media coverage, it just needs sources added.[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 21:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above or at worst merge with the album.--JForget 00:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as verifiable single release from a notable band, per WP:MUSIC. Note that the article should be refactored to cover the single release, rather than the song itself. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Merge into Muertos Vivos as the single has not had significant coverage by Billboard or similar definitive record charting publications on a national (not regional) level. B.Wind (talk) 05:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Has Fil Flipped?[edit]

The result was first nom still open (non-admin closure), old cached copy, the AfD wasn't posted at the top, apologies. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Per WP:Music: All articles on albums or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines. Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage. Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. With the new search box a redirect isn't necessary now. Wizardman 00:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B-Flat[edit]

per WP:Music

Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This misses the mark by a long way. There will be a need for this stuff, but it's really not encyclopaedic enough for WP. --Richhoncho (talk) 06:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep By a very notable artist, legotech probally hasn't even read WP:Music [The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 04:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nomination is a direct quote from WP:Music. I did not nominate the songs that had a reason to be notable. Luke is upset that his articles about his band do not qualify for WP and has decided to blame me for that. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: if I were to type B-Flat into a search box, I probably am looking for B-flat instead. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 06:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to B-flat. Taemyr (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 03:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TerraLook[edit]

Spamvertisement for an apparently non-notable website that uses USGS data. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a government service rather than a commercial one, as far as I can tell. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-169636833.html describes it as an offering of the "U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with NASA," http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=TerraLook lists other articles. And perhaps some of its imaging (if it is public domain, as I would expect) could be incorporated into Wikipedia. --Eastmain (talk) 04:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. If it weren't for the fact that this was a government service, I'd say that it wouldn't merit inclusion. However, I think government departments/organizations and their projects are inherently notable, and considering that there's at least three or four articles to be found on them with a quick google news search, I think it's enough for at least a stub. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 11:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 03:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gob (album)[edit]

Per WP:Music: All articles on albums or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines. Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage. Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 01:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KeepHow the hell is this not notable for WP:Music??!?!??! it's the very first album by a very notable band. It's okay that you tagged some of the less notable singles with deletion, but this, this is overboard. [The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 20:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep, notable album by a very notable band.--JForget 00:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep, exactly what JForget just said. -- WikHead (talk) 00:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:MUSIC Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ass Seen on TV[edit]

Per WP:Music: All articles on albums or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines. Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage. Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 01:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Inline with the above comment, I feel the best thing to do is merge all the album information together. --Eustress (talk) 15:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I think LegoTech either really doesn't like GOB or he hasn't even read WP:Music, because this is a notable album, by a notable artist. He's tagges almost every GOB related article for AFD, wouldn't that be abusing your rights to edit wikipedia?[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 20:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe this article has the potential to meet all basic expectations through normal editing. Google is your friend. -- WikHead (talk) 01:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Major band + major label = no-brain keep. Either a bad faith or a misguided nom. — iridescent 14:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

F.U. EP[edit]

Per WP:Music: All articles on albums or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines. Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage. Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 01:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I think LegoTech either really doesn't like GOB or he hasn't even read WP:Music, because this is a notable album, by a notable artist. He's tagges almost every GOB related article for AFD, wouldn't that be abusing your rights to edit wikipedia?[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 20:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe this article has the potential to meet all basic expectations through normal editing. Google is your friend. -- WikHead (talk) 01:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. No clear redirect destination. Pastordavid (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has Fil Flipped?[edit]

Per WP:Music: All articles on albums or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines. Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage. Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 01:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-Notable per failing WP:MUSIC.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 04:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect To either a newly created GOB Discography article, or the articles for Mcrackins and GOB. TO delete it would imply that this EP does not exist. [LukeTheSpook] | ^{[t c r]} 17:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to The McRackins and copy to Gob (band), or vice versa. Lack of suitable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs)
Delete - Non-notable album, content consists of a track listing only, no clear target for merge or redirect. Incidentally, deletion never implies non-existence--it merely implies non-notability. Believe you me, the two are worlds apart :) --jonny-m t 13:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable. I looked through few hits my google search brought up, and there's no evidence of notability. Yilloslime (t) 19:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 03:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Cassady[edit]

Unsuccessful candidate in an election, no other claim to notability. Blueboy 96 01:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO#Politicians: Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." —97198 talk 05:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN; looks like this was created because she was a current candidate, then updated after she lost, and just stagnated. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 06:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO.--Berig (talk) 06:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, failed political candidate from 2004, WP:BLP1E. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. And burning in hell for it, presumably. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leebo the Clown[edit]

Non-notable local kids' show, no reliable sources to be seen. Reads more like an obit for Leland Harris who played him. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable article, and I agree that it reads like an obituary (though I wonder if he had 50 other clowns packed into his hearse). Ecoleetage (talk) 02:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is so wrong, and I'll probably burn in hell for laughing at it. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 06:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Pass the marshmallows. :) --Fabrictramp (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to KAIL, to allow for recreation if and when reliable sources are found. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 19:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're Too Cool[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/You're Too Cool

per WP:Music

Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 01:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Song isn't notable enough for its own article, because it hasn't charted or won awards. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable.--Berig (talk) 06:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Slim coverage in secondary sources, no charted songs, no awards. Fails MUSIC entirely. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 11:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge To album. [LukeTheSpook] | ^{[t c r]} 17:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:WEB. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MusicOMH.com[edit]

No sources independent of the site to pass WP:WEB. Spellcast (talk) 01:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article only cites the website it's talking about, no third party coverage. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 06:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of third-party coverage. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 15:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 03:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

K. R. Tony[edit]

Tagged for notabiliy since November. Contributed to two volumes which don't have their own pages. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not look notable. JIP | Talk 04:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of poet or poet's work being notable. —97198 talk 04:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references for this person. Does not currently appear notable. Artene50 (talk) 05:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Berig (talk) 06:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 03:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 03:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This post-modern poet is actually notable, but I don't know enough Malayalam to fill out the article. -Yupik (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus, WP:N and WP:ORG. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eribium[edit]

Doesn't appear to be notable. Orphaned for nearly 2 years now with no improvement. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no claims to notability. Seems like something someone built one day. Canterbury Tail talk 01:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Really nothing there. No claim of notability, no sources. Pigman☿ 05:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Berig (talk) 06:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not only orphaned/abandoned for over two years, it's not even linked from the author's web site's front page. Merenta (talk) 02:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus, per additional sourcing that verifies the notability of Mack, and additional cleanup that happened after the good faith nomination. Article still needs cleanup though, marking as such. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mack White[edit]

Article fails to establish why this person is notable. Lacks verifible 3rd party citations. Fails WP:BIO Rtphokie (talk) 01:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

~~Delete~~ as NN; I can't find any sources to demonstrate notability. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 06:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I couldn't find any sources but Waynepix did. Keep; looks notable based on the new sources. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable.--Berig (talk) 06:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable. Mack White is on the List of Comics Journal interview subjects, a reliable standard for notability in the comics industry. He is also listed prominently in the Zero Zero article, another strong measure of his notoriety in the medium. Waynepix (talk) 07:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Being listed in a wikipedia article isn't a measure of notability; anyone could have put them there. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 08:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The significance of White's contributions to Zero Zero and other ground-breaking anthologies is well known in the comics industry. His interview in the Comics Journal is also well known. These are verifiable facts, not simply a matter of someone putting his name in a Wikipedia article. Clearly, this is an issue that can best be addressed by someone with a knowledge of the subject of comics.Waynepix (talk) 08:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Very possible, but it needs to be verified. See WP:RS and WP:V. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I do not have an opinion regarding the subject's notability at the moment. There is a lot of info currently in the article that is, at the moment, unveriefied and this worried me quite a bit. However, doing a GoogleNews search for "Mack White" comic gives 57 hits[52] and the same GoogleBooks search gives 38 hits [53]. This might be viewed as indication of notability as a comic book artist. However, I could not verify the claim in the article that he was interviews in the Rolling Stone. A search of the Rolling Stone website produces no hits[54]. Notability as a blogger or a political commentator appears dubious; I could not find any independent reliable sources to that effect. Nsk92 (talk) 20:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have added three full citations to the article, one to the 1997 Comics Journal interview, a second to a profile of the artist in the Austin American-Statesman, and a third to the Baltimore City Paper. The Rolling Stone interview was a short interview by Peter Relic on page 92 of the August 19, 2004 issue, with White and Gary Groth, his co-editor of The Bush Junta, probably not a long enough piece to be considered a full interview. I would suggest deleting mention of the piece, and perhaps deleting mention of White's being a blogger and political commentator until a reliable source can be found for those statements.Waynepix (talk) 20:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A fourth citation to a more recent profile and interview (Austin Chronicle, 12/22/2006) has also been added.Waynepix (talk) 20:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Unverified statements have been removed. Suggestions for further clean-up of the article are welcome.Waynepix (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to keep based on your new sources; my suggestion for cleanup would be using more footnote citations for the biographical section of the article. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs)
- Following your suggestion, I added several footnotes to the biographical information. The last paragraph contained information that could not be verified, therefore it was removed. Other changes were made for clarification and a more concise article.Waynepix (talk) 20:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. References that look like independent secondary sources are listed. I see that the subject is interested in his biography. Welcome, Mark. See WP:COI for constructive advice. A picture of the subject and of the subjects work, copyrighted under the GFDL, would definately help improve the article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It somewhere close to the notability limit but there has been some good work done finding sources. (Emperor (talk) 16:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There was no consensus for deletion. Further, I find the keepers' arguments more persuasive. The bar that has to be crossed for a page on a word to be encyclopaedic, rather than just a dicdef, is for the article to be able to say something substantial about the cultural significance of the word and posh crosses that bar. I find the comment, in the AfD, that the extensive debate, on the etymology, adds to notability to have validity. It is not just in the UK that the origins of this word is debated as this article in the NY Times shows. Whether this page should be split and renamed, as also suggested, is a matter for post-AfD talk page discussion. TerriersFan (talk) 01:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Posh[edit]

WP:NAD. This article includes only two sections, "Etymology" and "Other Meanings". The current article resembles a dictionary entry. One editor, 75.74.156.42, is currently stating that "posh is an element of fashion", but provides no sources or further information. I can't find a concept, practice or school of "posh" that would substantiate this claim and so merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. Howfar (talk) 00:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given just how many times I've seen articles both asserting and debunking the supposed "Port Out Starboard Home" etymology, an encyclopedic article can definitely be written about the subject. (Seriously, I think I've met that in just about every book about words I've ever read.) —Quasirandom (talk) 02:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the fact that this word is the subject of an oft-disputed folk etymology makes it encyclopedically notable in and of itself. The article on fuck, probably the other most famous acronymic misattribution, devotes only a few of its many lines to "For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge" and its variations. What do we add to Wikipedia (that should not be covered by the Wiktionary) by giving a separate article to every well known false etymology? Could the material be incorporated into Backronym, for example? I do see the point of creating articles about folk individual etymologies, but I wonder whether it would be the best way of achieving our collective aim. Would we call it "posh" or "Etymythology of 'Posh'", or "False Etymology of Posh", or what, really? There are fascinating articles to be written about folk etymology. I just don't think that this is a good candidate for a standalone encyclopedia article. Howfar (talk) 04:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That the etymology is noted pretty much is the definition of wiki-notibility. This one gets bandied about more than most -- possibly only OK gets more debate. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to dictionary. B.Wind (talk) 04:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- wikt:posh already exists, so transwikiing is not a reasonable option. —Angr 09:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, in that case, delete as a dicdef. B.Wind (talk) 00:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki/Soft redirect Doesn't seem like there would be much to write beyond a dicdef. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 06:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- wikt:posh already exists, so transwikiing is not a reasonable option. —Angr 09:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll elaborate- transfer anything not already at wiktionary, then soft redirect. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Quasirandom.--Berig (talk) 06:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is a notable cultural construct in British English, compared to just being an occasional adjective ("posh quarters") in American. (As an aside, I am struck that we have no Social class in the United Kingdom article, a place where class for good or ill continues to matter, but do have one for a place where it notoriously doesn't.) The etymology can be in there but it's hardly the most interesting thing to write about. --Dhartung | Talk 08:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Posh has notable cultural significance in British English, yes. But so do the words "Rich", "Wealthy" and "Loaded". In wikipedia the first two redirect to "wealth", and the third is not mentioned in the context of wealth. JSTOR only turns up one tangential reference to posh, with "talking posh" being used to refer to a set of cultural assumptions about speech. I don't see any research of the type that we could use to extend this into an encyclopedia article, for instance devoted to the significance of posh as a cultural concept. Is there stuff I'm missing? JSTOR seems to think that the "Siah" and "Safed-Posh" of the Hindu Kush are more significant uses of the word than its cultural significance in British English. (In response to your aside, my experience of the countries suggests that social class matters in both places in different but significant ways. I would substitute "purportedly" for "notoriously" in your link title. I suspect that the article that would have been useful to you is Social structure of Britain, which discusses social class. And while Wikipedia cannot be a source for Wikipedia, it might be relevant to mention that posh does not appear there, either.) Howfar (talk) 11:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've heard "Port Out Starboard Home" a lot of times, and I think the term has some pop culture uses (e.g., Posh Spice), which could be elaborated upon in this article. Obviously, sources are needed, but the article has potential. --Eustress (talk) 15:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that the case has yet to be made that a well-known misattribution is sufficient to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. To respond to your second point, Scary and Sporty (the other "Adjective Spices") are disambiguation pages, Baby redirects to Infant, Ginger refers to the actual spice, not the Spice Girl. The fact that an adjective is applied to a notable person does not make that adjective notable in itself. Howfar (talk) 19:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More comment and less sarcasm. Please review WP:Civility and WP:Etiquette. --Eustress (talk) 03:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm in two minds about the etymology section, but the "other meanings" section seems to be a clear-cut violation of "Wikipedia is not a dictionary". If consensus is that the etymology of "posh" is a notable and encyclopedic topic, I would suggest removing the other material and possibly moving the article to Etymology of "posh". EALacey (talk) 23:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another note. Dictionary.com lists eight meanings for the word, with the notation of the acronym mentioned above is "without foundation," according to the American Heritage Abbreviations Dictionary, third edition. Tony can be considered a synonym for one of the meanings of posh. B.Wind (talk) 04:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given that a lot of people think that the false etymology of posh is notable, which seems fair enough, I personally agree with EALacey's suggestion to move the etymology material to Etymology of "posh" or something similarly named. Posh would presumably then disambiguate between Posh Spice, Peterborough United, Etymology of 'posh' and any others. I think that solution avoids creating a dictionary entry, reserves plenty of space for notable information about the P.O.S.H. etymology (including development, variations, relation to other folk-etymologies etc.) and usefully helps people to search for information related to the word "posh". Howfar (talk) 22:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete' --JForget 00:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of English Word Suggestions[edit]

This article doesn't seem particularly encyclopedic, especially given that the list is currently empty and the article subject is so nebulously defined. Thanks. Rnb (talk) 00:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We already have these. They're called Sniglets. Anyway, useless list for sure -- no set criteria. I could add IIIUIII just because I have a tendency to get five or six I's in a row on my rack when I play Scrabble. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's very little possibility for this to ever become an encyclopedic article considering the intended content. As long as it doesn't have any set criteria (and I can't think of any, although I'm open to suggestions), it's too open and anyone could add anything they want. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind if you would edit it. Also, in the future it should state the array of writters or simply common people's ideas and suggestions for the english language, which is something very popular in society. I can find that to be a very useful resource. Piepeople (talk) 00:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place for people to make up their own words. This has no encyclopedic merit. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be better if it was called "List of Supported Snigglets"? I would probably re-do the whole page if it was. What do you think? Piepeople (talk) 01:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, because there would still be no set criteria for this list, and people could add stuff like "Yakka foob mog" or IIIUIII if they wanted. This list serves no purpose whatsoever in an encyclopedia. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I just found a website that was actually linked to the sniglet page, consisting of an entire sniglet database. I agree that my page should be deleted now. Piepeople (talk) 01:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry, Piepeople, but most of us don't feel that the English language needs to be improved... or that a bunch of "mouse potatoes" (sorry, not a word I coined) are the ones to do it. I think that the concept of Wikipedia is to make it easier to understand that which has already been written. Maybe you can start your own webpage somewhere. Somewhere else. Mandsford (talk) 02:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Delete as original research. JIP | Talk 04:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ill-defined list unlikely to become properly useful or encyclopedic. Pigman☿ 05:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a suggestion box for the English language. Zetawoof_(ζ) 06:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR and per TenPoundHammer.--Berig (talk) 06:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, one of the strangest "articles" I have yet come across on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a suggestion box. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have plenty of on this sort of thing already - see Meaning of Liff. This article is not worth merging. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In all fairness, the creator of the page, Piepeople, has acknowledged that it should be deleted. Mandsford (talk) 14:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per TenPoundHammer and WP:NFT. Wikipedia is not the place for you to list your personal snigets, Wikipedia is not your webspace and is not a dictionary. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 still some concerns over notability based on the available sources, even after 15 days at AfD. Gnan garra 12:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clesh[edit]

non-notable software; unreferenced/unsourced - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --John Nagle (talk) 20:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into FORscene or keep as stub ~~Merge into FORscene~~ ~~Delete~~ (mk has managed to find an impressive list of minor references to the software, including some that start to look as notable coverage[55]. The article has too little detail to be more than a stub) (it appears to be the comsumer version of FORscene, which is a notable product) No assertion of notability at all, fails both WP:WEB and WP:CORP. Also, fails WP:SELFPUB, since 3 out of 4 sources on the article are also press releases, and the article relies heavily on them, including the notability assertion on the first sentence. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Clesh is *already* merged with FORscene. This is a cause of confusion for the reader and article authors, having to manage two products following different development paths and serving different purposes in the one article. Same scenario as Adobe Premiere Pro / Elements articles - separate articles.mk (talk) 21:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added another reference to the Clesh article that I hope will lend weight to the view this article should be retained. This brings the total to four now. The Royal Television Society recognised the technology on which this software is based as 'disruptive'. It is quite unique in its field and is undeserving of the 'not-notable' tag. It is the first - and currently I believe the only - example of a purely internet based frame accurate editing and publishing platform for the consumer. The organisation that produces it has a history within the video compression / editing industry of approaching 20 years I believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Kilby (talk • contribs) 23:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The award mentioned was awarded for FORscene, which already has an article. --John Nagle (talk) 01:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue:

The RTS award does apply to Clesh
The two services FORscene / Clesh are different enough to warrant two articles
For consistency with other offerings which are accorded separate articles

The RTS award does apply to Clesh

At the time the RTS award was given there was only FORscene. This single platform has since diverged into two platforms; Clesh and FORscene. They are different but they share the same basic technology. The award was for the technology which is the same in both services therefore the award still applies equally to FORscene / Clesh.

The two services FORscene / Clesh are different enough to warrant two articles

Despite Clesh and FORScene both sharing the same basic technology they are different enough to each warrent their own article. Not only do they have different features they have different audiences. Clesh is aimed at consumers whereas FORscene is aimed at professionals.

As a consumer I wouldn't want to wade through reams of information that does not apply to the service/product I am interested in. It would border on being misleading. The aim of Clesh is ease of use / simplicity. Presenting a description of Clesh in the context of a professional service runs the risk of delivering an overly complex view of that service. I don't believe this would be right for the reader.

For consistency with other offerings which are accorded separate articles

The scenario of a common platform being tailored for different purposes / audiences is not unique to Clesh / FORscene and in other (virtually identical) contexts different articles exist in Wikipedia and work very well IMO. For example:

* Adobe Premiere Elements

* Adobe Premiere Pro

The above are both video editing offerings that share the same basic technology (just like Clesh and FORscene do). The Elements offering is for consumers (as is Clesh) and the Pro offering is for professionals (as is FORscene). As this text from the consumer version demonstrates...

It is a scaled-down version of the professional-level… It is the number one selling consumer video editing software

I.e. both share a common technology base but deliver different features to completely different sets of users.

Would it be right to have two different rules for the same scenario? How does the scenario of Adobe Premiere Pro / Elements differ from that of the FORscene / Clesh scenario? From where I'm standing Adobe is a much bigger company than the creator of FORscene / Clesh. Surely this is not the basis on which Wikipedia wants to discriminate?

mk (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above I.e.

Software is notable and there is independent support for this
FORscene/Clesh share common technology but are diverged and serve entirely different user bases / have different feature sets
Authors of the software are notable and have a history working with video compression and editing stretching back nearly 20 years
Maintain consistency with other providers of software in the same space

E.g. Adobe Premiere has two articles (one for Elements and one for Pro). They share common technology but serve different audiences (consumer / professional) and have different articles to reflect this. The scenario of Clesh / FORscene is precisely the same.

mk (talk) 09:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note Signature "mk" and signature "Mark Kilby" are both Mark Kilby (talk · contribs). --John Nagle (talk) 15:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please notice that both Adobe products have more coverage by notable sources on the field than Clesh, which has still to show ~~enough coverage~~ any coverage at all. Notice that, in particular, Adobe Premiere Pro has massively more coverage that Clesh, making it a very unfortunate application of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It's also comparing apples with oranges (Adobe products are a shelf product, and Clesh is an online service). Also notice how the only claim of why it's notable is sourced on a press release from the company that created the product, that's not acceptable verifiability per WP:SELFPUB as the notability claim is based only on that source (I added this also to my !vote above). --Enric Naval (talk) 14:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Adobe Premiere Pro has massively more coverage that Clesh"

I’m not confident that the numbers game is a productive way forward. Precisely what level of coverage / usage would Clesh need to get its own article? Unless a number can be agreed upon how will we know when this line is crossed? Who would arbitrate the selection of such a number?
It seems a very odd way to go about spreading new knowledge to have as a pre-requisite the condition that the knowledge should already be widespread.

"It's also comparing apples with oranges"

It is not comparing Apples with oranges. Google_Docs competes with Microsoft_Office. The former adopts the same model as Clesh and the latter a Shelf Model, as you call it. Comparisons are constantly drawn between the two Google and Microsoft products; much of it speculation about which will prevail. Adobe and Clesh are both apples, they are different types of apple however.
The distinction you draw between Shelf / online software is rooted in the 20th century. Modern software has blurred the lines. If it isn’t used or delivered entirely online most all serious software has a facility to download updates online. After several updates you may even find you have downloaded most all the software online anyway.
What you refer to (Shelf vs online) IS a difference but that does not make the two different to the point they cannot be compared as alike. I used to edit video using Adobe Premiere but switched to Clesh and I do the same things as I always did. The delivery of the software to my door has changed - that is all - I’m still editing and publishing video. Online capability is a competitive advantage IMO – in favour of Clesh - but that is a different debate.

"Also notice how the only claim of why it's notable is sourced on a press release from the company that created the product"

This claim from yourself is not true so it should be retracted. The following quote is from an article authored by the major ISP Tiscali and not from the owners of Clesh: …Clesh is the first fully interactive consumer web-based editing package and offers an easy and convenient way to edit… (read in full here). Tiscali’s name is against this text not the owners of Clesh. Tiscali is independant in this regard.
Clesh is the very first professional grade video editing system available to consumers entirely online. Doing video editing online and doing it well is a non-trivial problem to solve. Clesh has solved it and solved it well. If it were the 10th such service to arrive on the market then I could understand some resistance but it is the pioneer. What is the point of an Encylopedia if it fails to accommodate advances such as this.

mk (talk) 22:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, doh, about Tiscali not being the creator, please notice that Tiscali parterned with the creators to launch the software, I can read "Tiscali UK has teamed up with Forbidden Technologies to launch Clesh (...) Available at launch only at www.tiscali.co.uk (...) To celebrate the launch of Clesh on the Tiscali portal, Tiscali is offering users the chance to win a dream weekend away (...)"[56]. Tiscali has an interest on making the software look good and he's one of the launchers, and this is a press release from a partner, not independient coverage, so my statement of WP:SELFPUB stands.

mk, the limits are clearly stablished at WP:WEB and WP:CORP, and, in order to assert notability, the number of indepedient coverages *is* important. Clesh is failing the notability guidelines at those two links, and Adobe Premiere Pro is clearly reaching them and then some more. Wikipedia is not "spreading knowledge", it's gathering it, and it has set some guidelines to decide what can have an article and what can't, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There is no "number game" here. The deletion decisions are based on Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators.
As far as I can see, people are counting notable articles here, which makes this facet of the debate a numbers game.

I have not begun to seriously look for other articles. I will search for more in order to bolster those already provided. If anybody else has any to hand please list them within the references section of the main Clesh article.

Wikipedia both spreads and gathers knowledge, I've learnt a good deal from it and so have others. The knowledge I've gained was spread to me from other people via Wikipedia. If spreading knowledge isn't part and parcel of its purpose then why is it sitting on a public network? If it didn't spread knowledge it would wilt and die.

mk (talk) 12:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The primary purpose of wikipedia is making a high-quality encyclopedia. Please read Wikipedia:Simplified_ruleset and look at the 5 Pillars of wikipedia. Rules may change, but "spreading knowledge" is not one of the main purposes of wikipedia. It's sitting on a public network so anyone can read it and edit it in order to make a better encyclopedia. I'm sorry if this deceives you. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone thinking that wikipedia exists solely for the pleasure of a few thousand editors to tinker with an encyclopedia - is deceiving themselves. If that were its purpose then it would not need to provide the infrastructure to support the millions of people that access it. It depends to a degree on popular support and that is secured for in part by spreading knowledge to people that seek it (and end up donating money to support it). mk (talk) 09:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adobe's product is different because no one would apply WP:WEB to it, but we can perfectly apply it to Clesh. So, for the purposes of this debate, I consider them as different as apples and oranges. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most people would disagree with you IMO. People will look at Adobe Premiere because they are interested in video editing. They will not look at it as a great piece of software for putting on shelves. As such, they would also have an interest in Clesh - particularly so because it is a unique and noteworthy alternative at this time (as I have found).

Wikipedia has a gap with respect to consumer video editing and publishing software - there are articles for off the shelf video editing products but none that use an online model. Adobe has articles for pro and consumer flavours, and this mis mirrored in FORscene (online pro service which has an article) and Clesh (the consumer equivalent which has no article.

mk (talk) 12:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the purpose of this debate at AfD in wikipedia Adobe Premiere has different notability requirements than Clesh and should not be treated the same way, and Adobe has tons more coverage than Clesh by wikipedia standards, ok? --Enric Naval (talk) 18:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Offer: Hi! A am involved in developing Clesh, so may be able to shed some light on this discussion. Would people welcome this, or prefer to continue without me? Stephen B Streater (talk) 17:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Stephen B Streater - I think a vote from yourself would be counter productive :-) Speaking for myself, any further references that independantly lend weight to the notability of Clesh would be very welcome —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Kilby (talk • contribs) 22:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article must be kept in wikipedia as it was mentioned for months already in the article list of video editing software, Alcid —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alcid (talk • contribs) 04:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hum, this is not enough reason for creating an article.... You should address the notability problems by showing non-trivial coverage by secondary independent sources, since this appears to be the biggest problem with this article --Enric Naval (talk) 04:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been started by me, a new clesh user, who was overwelmed by this tool. He found it via Wikipedia in a list called List of video editing software. In this list the word "clesh" had a red font color, which means that Wikipedia asks to create an article on it, which the man did. --Alcid (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that means that some editor listed several pieces of software and made links so anyone can decide to try and create the article. This does not mean that the article should forcefully exist. There is a list of requested articles at Wikipedia:Requested_articles but it doesn't mean that all those articles deserve an article of its own --Enric Naval (talk) 18:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I left a note at Wikiproject Films here --Enric Naval (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notice that the company Forbidden Technologies does not have an article of its own, but it has a notable product called FORscene and has clear notability with very good coverage. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's a comprehensive comparison of video editing software here. Clesh and FORscene are included like for like alongside other well known brands such as Avid and Adobe. The Adobe Pro / Elements software (the professional / consumer versions of the Premiere product) both have thier own articles and is equivalent to the FORscene / Clesh scenario, yet only FORscene has an article currently. Since the FORscene article was added a consumer version of the FORscene (Clesh) has been created. From this arises the need for a specific Clesh article. mk (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~FORscene is mentioned in equal footing to Adobe products but Clesh is not. Clesh is only mentioned on a table at the end~~. I just noticed that this page is sourced from a wikipedia article called Comparison_of_video_editing_software, and wikipedia articles are not an acceptable source for things that are not about wikipedia itself. You will have to find better sources --Enric Naval (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears that Clesh is the consumer version of FORscene, see [57]. This menans it could perfectly be added as a sub-section of FORscene article --Enric Naval (talk) 19:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't quite the perfect solution for Adobe Premiere Elements for the same reasons it is not perfect for Clesh. FORscene and Clesh are two distinct services. The only thing they have in common are the nuts and bolts - just like Premiere Pro / Elements. It is already getting complicated within the FORscene article, a point I raised on the FORscene article discussion board myself quite some time ago. It becomes *very* confusing both for authors of the FORscene article and *even more* so for readers. The two services are being taken down completely different paths by the company that created them. mk (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is Adobe_Premiere_Elements having enough coverage for an article of its own, and Clesh not having it. It's not confusing for the reader if it's well redacted --Enric Naval (talk) 20:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are now seventeen independant references regarding Clesh. Note - this is more than the article FORscene has. mk (talk) 09:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notable References Under advice from Enric Naval I've annotated the references so far collated for Clesh that I am able to do so (see main article). As of now there are 17 notable references. I have requested help with the three that are not in English. mk (talk) 21:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I wouldn't like to vote since I'm not familiar with the inclusion standards for software products, but there seem at first glance to be enough references for this to make it notable. However, I'm removing the two Polish references: one of them is not about Clesh at all, and the other just contains a very brief product review which is unlikely to add anything to the encyclopedia article.--Kotniski (talk) 12:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a stub (first choice) or merge into FORscene. There isn't a lot of independent coverage (I found this at an investor news site and a few other investor-related hits) but the product clearly exists as a separate offering from FORscene. I think it should be represented as a short stub article with links to FORscene and Tiscali. ATren (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp (talk) 00:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by relisting admin: The references in the article have changed substantially since most of the !votes above, so I am relisting it to form consensus based on the article as it now stands.--Fabrictramp (talk) 00:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Piece of crap though it is ("Clesh is notable because ..."), I think that among the amalgamation of equally crappy references, there are a few that assert a level of notability. A crawling, gangly notability, but notability nonetheless. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: don't merge with FORscene. Either keep or delete. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 07:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. By a straight vote count, this is a "no consensus", but notability is sufficiently established by the fact that this book is a major award winner. - Philippe 03:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shhhhh! Everybody's Sleeping[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Shhhhh! Everybody's Sleeping

Non-notable children's book. asenine ^{say what?} 00:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Author is a red link, no reliable sources to be found; fails WP:BOOK. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Given the large holes in Wikipedia's coverage of children's lit, among other areas, that the author's a redlink isn't much of an argument. 02:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quasirandom (talk • contribs)

Yes, but the lack of reliable sources is. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of readily available sources in news and print suggest a lack of notability; fails BOOK. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Julie Markes should have her own article, since this and several other books she has written have been the subject of multiple reviews: [58], [59], [60], [61], etc. I'd suggest keeping this article for now, and eventually merging the content into an article on the author. Zagalejo^^^ 01:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see some trivial coverage, like a long mention on a list of books that help to get children to sleep[62]. The only other non-trivial coverage that I can see is a book review on a bimonthy online journal here. Not sure about the notability of that journal. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a reply to my comment? Zagalejo^^^ 04:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I'm only referring to sources that talk about that book, not sources that talk about other books from same author. I'm striking it out amd moving to a better place where it doesn't cause misunderstandings. For the record, I made no research on the notability of the actual author or his other books, so I can't comment on it and didn't intend to. I think that you should attempt to make a stub on Julie Markes with some of those sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability, fails WP:BOOK. Without more substantial (or any) sources, I can't see a reason for keeping it. Pigman☿ 05:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ First, let me note that the notability guideline for books is WP:BK, not WP:BOOK (the latter refers to the wikiproject on books). I don't know if the author is notable; the real question is if the book is notable. There are a few published reviews and mentions of this book, see GoogleNews[63] which gives 16 hits altogether. Among them are reviews at the School Library Journal [64] and Childhhood Education[65]. Still these are rather short reviews and there are only a few of them. Does not seem enough to satisfy WP:BK. Nsk92 (talk) 18:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep, based on FaithF's research, particularly the 2005 Best Book award from SLJ. I don't know if it qualifies as a "major" award, but it seems significant enough for a keep. Nsk92 (talk) 01:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see some trivial coverage, like a long mention on a list of books that help to get children to sleep[66]. The only other non-trivial coverage that I can see is a book review on a bimonthy online journal here. Not sure about the notability of that journal. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Used as a Renaissance Learning book, on suggested reading lists for several elementary schools including [67] [68], selected by SLJ as a Best Book of 2005 (SLJ review), (in Australian library) Faith (talk) 08:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with other article or Relist due to new sources found by Faith including Best Book of 2005 award and usage as summer reading by public schools. I updated the article [69]. It could still be listed instead on a list of infant books for sleeping, or on the SLJ article as one of their awarded books --Enric Naval (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A SLJ best book of the year award is fully sufficient for notability. (Being used as reading by several public schools, however, is not.--but its hardly needed.) A major award is enough--why didnt someone look initially? DGG (talk) 01:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- as DGG notes, SLJ best book of the year is sufficient notability unto itself, even without reviews and being used on reading lists. Passes WP:BK three ways. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Waggers (talk) 13:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Wrestling Alliance: Africa[edit]

Wrestling promotion that fails WP:N and lacks references. King iMatthew 2008 00:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, wrestlingcruft. JIP | Talk 04:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 10:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the only claim to fame is being founded by Booker T, but this is not mentioned on Booker T's page. And notability is not inherited, with that discounted this is not a notable federation, yet. Delete with no prejudice to recreate if notability can be established. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a redirect page Pwa africa which needs to be included in any deletion. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: it says that it is a "promotion," which would not be particularly notable; if it were the league, or a major sporting event, that might be different. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 06:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do IP votes count? King iMatthew 2008 10:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They do. Darrenhusted (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 03:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parow Civic Centre[edit]

Definitely not a notable arena, with no references. King iMatthew 2008 00:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable.--Berig (talk) 06:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, apparently a small local venue (capacity 1800), not notable. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 10:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Matt you beat me to the punch. NN, per nom.Darrenhusted (talk) 08:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the relevant criteria is here. Darrenhusted (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it may be small, but according to the article it hosts professional events on a regular basis which I think would make it notable. The article needs references though, that's for sure. Bettia ^(talk) 11:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

52 ghits does not give me hope that any references would be found. Darrenhusted (talk)

306 hits on Google, 432 hits on Yahoo. Ajstyles tna roh (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Blacksmith (wrestler)[edit]

Fails WP:N and is from an promotion that may very well fail WP:N. King iMatthew 2008 00:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, wrestlingcruft. JIP | Talk 04:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry. JerryVanF (talk) 06:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable.--Berig (talk) 06:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 10:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everything already stated. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 04:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per previous comments. Say, has anyone noticed the glut of South African wrestlers in these AfD discussions? Ecoleetage (talk) 02:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I tried putting them up in one bundle but various editors objected, so here we are in the middle of 29 AfD debates. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and Delete per nom and all the other AfDs related to this matter. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Still unsourced. Sandstein 06:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kandpal[edit]

Apart from one citation that Scholar turns up there's no evidence of the claim made in this article and no evidence that it's a notable name. WP is not a geneaology project. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 19:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination and WP:NOTDIRECTORY I see no evidence that this name in and of itself is notable. Beeblbrox (talk) 21:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of references showing up in the regular news and print venues to suggest a distinct lack of notability. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not entirely surprising that the name isn't being found in English search engines, since it's an Indian name. Nonetheless, a cursory search of wikipedia finds a ton of common and less common English surnames. Brahmins have significant status in Indian society and therefore it seems likely that a cursory overview of Hindi sources would find numerous references. This should at least be reviewed by someone from Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy before it's arbitrarily deleted. Debate (talk) 03:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Anthroponymy has been informed of this ongoing discussion. Debate (talk) 03:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment That there are other similar articles is generally not considered a valid argument. AfD exists to make sure things aren't arbitrarily deleted, but deleted after five or more days of debate on the subject. I personally don't see how most Western surnames are topics for encyclopedic articles either, as most names fail the notability test, but I am all for taking things on an article-by-article basis. Beeblbrox (talk) 04:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment The comment was not an other stuff exists argument. It was in response to assertions such as "WP is not a geneaology project" per nom. Wikipedia can and does list surnames, and the fact that this one isn't appearing in English search engines is not a sufficient reason of itself for deletion, at least not without a review by someone who actually knows something about the topic. Debate (talk) 04:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I realize there are other surname articles. As I have already stated, I don't think most of them need a WP article either, but they are not all at AfD right now, this one is. I don't see how this name, or my name, or most other names, be they European, Indian, African, or whatever, are inherently notable. The thing that makes WP so cool is that we don't have to be experts on a topic, we just have to find reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Beeblbrox (talk) 05:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of which I broadly agree with. To try to make my case a little clearer, however, what I find problematic is an assessment of notability based predominantly on Google hits for a topic that is otherwise uncontroversial and that we can already infer is not likely to be covered extensively by English language sources, especially where an argument for notability can clearly be made based on the article text (a common surname with strong links to historically significant figures, used by members of an influential caste in a large area of the world's second most populous country). Debate (talk) 06:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any reliable sources to back up these assertions that this particular surname is notable? If they're as notable as you say, it shouldn't be difficult at all. While a few other-language sources are okay, this is the English Wikipedia, so most of what we do has to be verifiable to an English audience. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 11:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not strictly true, per WP:VUE. Nonetheless, I don't propose to go searching for sources for this one since I personally don't speak Hindi. Otherwise, I've already said all I need to say on this topic. Debate (talk) 11:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent)You may want to re-read VUE. The idea is that we're catering to an english-speaking audience, so while it's obviously true that not everything has to be sourced to english documents, we can't have articles based entirely on untranslated newspaper articles and the like. That makes verifiability a difficult thing to achieve. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 11:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nom comment, please not that I didn't nominate this because it was an Indian surname without sources available. I've nominated others for the same reason, the most recent being Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shuckerow . There are some notable surnames, often written about in scholarly research such as this (just a quick search). This name does not appear notable for speakers/readers of an English language encyclopedia. That said, this has been an interesting discussion _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 22:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I believe we should remove geneaology type articles unless there is an very clear indication that the name has a notability that deserves the individual attention. That needs to be verifiable beyond the present case. --Stormbay (talk) 15:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, A7 as notability was not even asserted. Blueboy 96 17:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lillian Eggers[edit]

Actress who was uncredited in half a dozen films in a two year acting period. Non-notable. Prod removed by article's creator, hence brought to AfD Richhoncho (talk) 05:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, NN minor actress, only significant mentions are for marrying and divorcing Tom Conway. --Dhartung | Talk 06:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN. I can't find any sources demonstrating the opposite. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 06:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable.--Berig (talk) 07:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable. asenine ^{say what?} 08:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing readily available to assert the notability of the subject. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 11:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Not credited" says it all. Delete per WP:Notability. --Eustress (talk) 15:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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