< May 13	May 15 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico City (former)[edit]

Today's Mexico City is not a different entity from the purported "former" Mexico City, anymore than Washington, DC is different and needs an article before it grew until it became coextensive and coterminus with the District of Columbia. They are one and the same city at different points in time. All the information here is repetitive and redundant with that already at Mexico_City#Federal_District. Moreover it is confusing to reader to suggest that there was "another" Mexico City in the past. It is also confusing as to suggest that the Federal District and Mexico City are two different entities, whereas constitutionally they are the same entity. the Dúnadan 23:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per a well-reasoned nomination. Nsk92 (talk) 00:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep per Ptcamn's and Phil Bridger's comments. The name of the article is somewhat misleading and should probably be changed to something more accurate, but this issue can be dealt with outside of this AfD. Nsk92 (talk) 22:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It looks like a bunch of work has been put into establishing the geopolitical history of Mexico City, a region of not-insignificant size. With links to past boundaries and a discussion at various steps, it seems this is taking shape. Several of the articles were created in the last several weeks. It may well be that improvements will be forthcoming. I can see the argument that the material is already in the main article, but taken in the context of all the articles it links to, it may be appropriate to keep this as a separate article. Frank | talk 01:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's strange to call this 30-year period the "former" Mexico City when the city existed at least 400 years before that. The Mexico City article has a section on jurisdiction and that can be spun off as an article if necessary. WillOakland (talk) 03:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You're main objection here seems to be the name of this article, rather than to its existence. Changing the name to something like Mexico City Administrative District (1941–1970) can be done without deletion, although I'm sure someone else can come up with a less clumsy name. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My objection is that these details are already fully covered in the MC article and anyone wanting this info will look there, not under this name. WillOakland (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If I'm understanding this and some of the linked articles right, it is part of a series detailing the changes of the city's subdivision structure. They all need sourced, however. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 09:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These are different entities. Neither the article Mexico City nor the article Mexico City (former) actually refer to a city in the sense of physical roads and buildings etc. They refer to political entities. Mexico City is officially synonymous with the Federal District, but it has only been that way since 1993 (and note that the actual urban area extends beyond the Federal District, as described in Greater Mexico City). Mexico City (former) was an administrative division within the Federal District, on the same level as the delegaciones. It is no more the same thing as the Federal District than Milpa Alta is. --Ptcamn (talk) 09:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But, in using the same logic, we should have several articles for each and every one of the cities in the world, because their political structure has changed during time. We should not only have one article for Tenochtitlan, but one for the municipality of Mexico Tenustitlan, another one for Mexico City (New Spain, viceroyalty), Mexico City (New Spain, intendencia), Mexico City (municipality) (during the first 100 years of independence), Mexico City (former), the one you just did, then the city mysteriously disappears from 1970 until 1993, only to reappear by being made synonymous, at least in paper, with the Federal District. It is actually the other way around. Mexico City precedes the Federal District, and Mexico City is the Federal District in virtue of it being the capital city. The city has existed regardless of the "political structure" it had. --the Dúnadan 01:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Other former administrative districts have their own articles, and the only difference here seems to be that this district has a similar name to other entities such as the federal district and the metropolitan area. That's no reason to treat this any differently. Compare also London, City of London, County of London, Greater London, Metropolitan Police District, Greater London Urban Area, and London Commuter Belt which are/were all separate entities so, for the same reason, have separate articles. Mexico City (former) is probably not the best name for this article, but that's a discussion for the talk page, not AfD. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In all of those cases the entities have different names that someone might know to look for. WillOakland (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The analogy is incorrect, for all the examples refer to existing entities not to historical entities. In the same way we have an article for Mexico City and another for Greater Mexico City, and both refer to two different things. The article "Mexico City (former) refers to the same city (that is, Mexico City) but at a different point in time -even if it was politically structured in a different way. Should we have an article for Washington (former) while it was a municipality before it became coextensive with the District of Columbia? Should we have articles for each period in time for the city of London? I suppose not. --the Dúnadan 01:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are many instances where municipal redistributions, mergers and the like have superseded earlier government units, and these precedent units are all worthy of articles in their own right. All these earlier units had governing structures, politicians, regulations and laws, awards, etc. many of which would of themselves be sufficiently notable to have their own articles. Furthermore, Mexico City in particular, as a capital city and one of the world's largest, is more than sufficiently notable to support a suite of related articles. Political structures are distinct from the geographic areas they represent. To transpose the analogy to the country level, this is no different from separating United States Congress, History of the United States Congress, Congress of the Confederation and, ultimately, the United States article itself. All warrant their own articles, as does this one. There are some decisions to be made about naming, however, discussions about that should best continue on this article's talk page. Debate (talk) 07:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was about to close this as keep, when I read some of the arguments. Dunadan makes good points. Debate's argument involving the governing structures, politicians, regulations and laws, awards, etc. doesn't convince me, as all the information could be incorporated into the main article. This also isn't comparable to the US Congress example, as the Congress of the Confederation was an entirely separate entity from the modern Congress. If the main article became too long, then summary style could be used, and "subarticles" like this could be used about the political history, but the Mexico City article certainly isn't all that long, and already incorporates all this information, and could incorporate quite a bit more. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 22:21, 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 redirect to Traverse Bay Area Intermediate School District#Traverse Bay Area Career-Tech Center. Fabrictramp (talk) 22:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Traverse Bay Area Career-Tech Center[edit]

Many organizations provide a vocational partnership with a school district, this one doesn't appear notable either as a partnership or as a standalone entity. The school district doesn't appear to have its own page, nor do I think a future article would benefit from these four, unsourced, sentences. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 15:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, although I suppose we could have a page Traverse Bay Area Intermediate School District, which is sort of an overlay district providing common services to several public school districts in this semi-rural area. --Dhartung | Talk 16:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:17, 12 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) 23:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Traverse Bay Area Intermediate School District#Traverse Bay Area Career-Tech Center. I have now created a page for Traverse Bay Area Intermediate School District and have merged the encyclopaedic content of this page into it. TerriersFan (talk) 00:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect thanks to TerriersFan's creation of the suggested article. --Dhartung | Talk 08:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per TerriersFan. Daddy.twins (talk) 02:06, 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) 23:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nephi Malit[edit]

Based on the article, this performer is NOT notable to an unusual degree. "has remained relatively unknown", "unsigned to any major record label", "vocal range and ability is not particularly noteworthy". CBHA (talk) 16:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:16, 12 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) 23:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as NN; g-news finds nothing; google hits are mostly Wikipedia mirrors and this person's Friendster. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 09:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and McCracken. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:39, 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 as WP:OR. Sandstein 06:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Republic[edit]

The entire article reads as an opinon piece, composed entirely of original research, devoid of reliably sourced facts or assertions. Even the lists of 'democratic republic' countries are possibly redundant and replicated elsewhere; by the articles own text they are only related by their name, and thus possibly an indiscriminate list. MickMacNee (talk) 23:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Essentially an OR essay. The topic itself seems to me to be a flawed concept for an article. Things like at best might belong in a list rather than an article. Nsk92 (talk) 00:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. original research / essay. Frank | talk 01:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everyone above. --Doug Weller (talk) 07:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Commentjust to add that the use of the name 'Democratic Republic' tells you nothing about the country, all you can say perhaps, but probably with no RS, is that it is a feel-good part of a country's name.
Keep This seems like a subject that deserves an article. I'd suggest reverting it way back to its third-oldest revision from 2005:[1] This would still need a little work, but it would make for a decent stub. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 09:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - that rev is totally POV, unsourced, and still just a WP:DICTDEF, IMHO. Frank | talk 11:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weakish keep, weakish mainly because my arguments in favour of keeping it suck. But delete the essay part, since it appears to be OR. Just retain as a list of entities that have used the the phrase in the name. There's likely been something written about this somewhere (how's that for an argument, eh ...?) and hopefully it could be expanded beyond just being a list of names. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm-m, not terribly convincing. If kept, I think it would have to be a list, as in WP:LISTS, rather than an article. Having an article about a subject like this does not seem very different from having an article about people named Roger or about countries whose name begins with letter "A".

As far as I can tell, having "Democratic Republic" in the name of the country is purely decorative and largely accidental and, in a substantive sense, not any different from plain "Republic". I rather doubt that there is any research dealing with the distinction of having "Democratic Republic" rather than "Republic" in the name of the country, as a systematic topic. At the very least, no evidence that such research exists has been shown. I believe that is the main reason why the article is filled with OR. The subject matter is artificial. Nsk92 (talk) 12:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources, entirely WP:OR except for the list. Quale (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Any decent article which could be written with this title would be a dictionary definition rather than an encyclopedic article, as it would be explaining the use of this phrase rather than describing any particular real-world entity. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research. I also agree with others who argue that this article can never really be more than a dictdef once unencylopedic content is removed. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:48, 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. Pastordavid (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signed VERP[edit]

non-notable neologism, only 6 unique hits for "signed verp" on google, two of those are on wikipedia, most of the rest are for usages unrelated to the definition given on the page. There was a contested prod. There is also a merge suggestion, but I feel that the merge is not appropriate because VERP is for mailing lists, while this is more like Bounce Address Tag Validation. Wrs1864 (talk) 12:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources suggests no notability. It can be recreated if/when the idea takes off. -- Mark Chovain 22:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment the "idea" has taken off in the form of Bounce Address Tag Validation, it is just this new name for an old idea that has no notability. Wrs1864 (talk) 12:42, 18 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) 23:51, 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. A single that reached #22 in the US or UK charts would undoubtedly be kept at AFD: I see no reason why this one shouldn't (and per WP:CSB as well). Black Kite 10:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Destiny (Matsuhashi Miki)[edit]

Non notable single by questionably notable artist. I feel like a tourist (talk) 19:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — Quasirandom (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable single. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:52, 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) 23:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No references indicating this is notable. --DAJF (talk) 02:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to Miki Matsuhashi for being performed multiple times on a famous TV show. It was the theme song for Detective Conan, one of the most famous anime (based on manga) still running in Japan, for 28 episodes. The single also reached #22 on Oricon, according to some websites, which shouldn't be too hard to check, I think. The first fact was already in article (I've now included the second), and notability guidelines for music clearly recommend a merge/redirect rather than deletion in this case. --C S (talk) 05:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the guidelines of WP:MUSIC to Miki Matsuhashi -- that it was a theme song and charted is part of the artist's notability, but unless and until someone comes up with something that will make this more than a permastub, it does not warrant a separate article. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Quasirandom. --Eustress (talk) 22:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:MUSIC#SONGS says "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts,"... " are probably notable". This song ranked on the Oricon chart, a national chart in Japan.--Fabrictramp (talk) 23:46, 20 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. The discussion borders on no consensus (which would here default to no deletion in any case), but many of the early comments in favor of deletion were made prior to the substantial improvements to the article. Factoring that in, there appears to be a rough consensus to keep the article.--Kubigula (talk) 05:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Bourne[edit]

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

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

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

Fails WP:BIO. After separating out his GoogleNews hits, ~~there are only three that I believe are related to him, one only mentions him~~, a few cite him as an author and ~~the other~~ two are about a poetry reading that he did. He has published poems but no awards to speak of for them. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable academic; fails WP:PROF guidelines. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — David Eppstein (talk) 00:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable professor. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After running into an absure deletion prod, I decided to come to the articles for deletion page and see how it goes. I now have a good deal of admiragtion for the dedicated people who plough through this list every day. I looked at a number of pages and had no basis on which to judge. However, this one is a real poet of some note. and, getting an appointment at a school like Wooster is no small achievement, either. He needs a better page. this one was probably put up by an admiring student. I'm going to drop him a note advising him to fix up his wikipedia pagel or perhaps I'll do it later this evening if I have time. For now, however, allow me to thank all of you who undertake the thankless chore of wading through the vanity pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.35.24 (talk) 21:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - please see WP:COI. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 01:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - My understanding is that full professors - particularly at significant schools such as Wooster - are generally notable. - Philippe 01:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Can you point out what points of WP:PROF he meets? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jauerback (talk • contribs) 02:10, 14 May 2008

I took a look, added a few things, and it's pretty clear that he is being considered in the wrong category. He has an MFA , not a PhD. In other words, he is a poet teaching creative writing at Wooster because of his distinguished record poblishing and writing poetry. considered as a poet, and his record is distinguished. He is not a Phdprofessor who critiques and publishes about poets. He actually is one. I think he should be kept, or, if considered for deletion, considered in another category.160.39.35.24

I already voted to keep. I am writing to make you aware that I have added material to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.35.24 (talk) 16:18, 14 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, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a creative professional and an author, by the standards for such. 160.39.35.24's analysis is correct. DGG (talk) 02:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My geographic area; I would have never though a prof from the College of Wooster would pass WP:PROF. I guess I learn something new every day. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 09:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Correct me if I'm wrong, but I still don't see how he meets either notability standards of WP:BIO or WP:PROF. Here's the standards for a professor set at WP:PROF (which are similar to Creative professionals standards at WP:BIO):

1 The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources.

All the references for him are places he's associated with. There are no independent reliable sources that have any coverage of him other than a poetry reading.

2 The person is regarded as an important figure by independent notable academics in the same field.

See Point 1.

3 The person has published a significant and well-known academic work. An academic work may be significant or well known if, for example, it is widely used as a textbook; if it is itself the subject of multiple, independent works; or if it is widely cited by other authors in the academic literature^[1].

He has published five books, two of which are translations of someone else's work, none of which are notable on their own.

4 The person's collective body of work is significant and well-known.

See Point 3.

5 The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea which is the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews or studies in works meeting our standards for reliable sources.

See Point 1 and Point 3.

6 The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them.

None.

Where am I going wrong? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although it is difficult to get a job in his field, that doesn't mean diddly to WP:PROF, which he fails. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 00:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepHe is poet, so WP:PROF does not apply. His translations are widely admired, and Artful Dodger is a good journal. This is what notability consists of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.33.150 (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Okay, WP:PROF doesn't apply, but WP:BIO does. He fails that, too. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: he is a well known poet, and his magazine Artful Dodge is responsible for giving many poets their first publications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.103.121.126 (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep': despite that the article itself needs to seriously be redone, Dan Bourne seems noteworthy. Find someone who isn't an admiring student to help out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.103.121.126 (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC) (indented because of double vote)[reply]

Keep He is publishing in highly-regarded literary magazines. That and the fact that he has books out form reputable pressesElan26 (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]
delete per Phlegm Rooster reason —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oo7565 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 16 May 2008

Explanation of earlier Keep changed from ~~Delete~~ the significant notability would be as a poet. What appears to be his most-held work of poetry "The household gods" is held by 57 libraries, according to worldCat--which is not trivial, but not extremely important either. Whatever more established poets may have written on the blurb for the book are not reviews in any more sense than the publisher's reviews in Amazon--they're primarily publishers' advertisements. DGG (talk) 03:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they are not like Amazon. anyone can write on Amazon. Book blurbs are by invitation, and the invitations are issued on the basis of the blurber being notable. also, usually, connectec to the publisher or author. but, still, notable enough to make the endorsement meaningful to potential purchasers. That said, a blurb is less objective than a review, albeit reviews are also often written by people connected with the publisher or the author. Do go back and look at the page. It was pretty bad when it was first posted, but since this began someone has gone in and created a page that, had it been this way when first posted, would never have been flagged for notability.Elan26 (talk) 15:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]

Jauerback*I came boack to see how the debate was going. When you flagged it, I could see your point. And, indeed, flagging it has had the effect of making a lazy page creator turn this into a solid page. It now seems clesr, to me at least, that the page creator has now posted so many creditable achievements, and so many reliable sources that KEEP is a no-brainer. Interesting process and outcome.Elan26 (talk) 01:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]

Comment - I acknowledge the article has improved substantially, however I see nothing to indicate how he meets the standards of WP:BIO. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First, I do not think he qualifies under WP:PROF. He is known for his poetry and translations, not for his scholarly research. But he does seem to qualify under WP:BIO as a creative professional/poet/translator, even if the case is not very strong (but previous AfDs regarding poets show that such situations are not unusual and that it is often not easy to demonstrate notability there). The page has been improved considerably in the last few days and looks mostly up to speed now. GoogleBooks, even after filtering, gives 111 hits for him[2]. GoogleScholar produces 29 hits after filtering[3], some of which give explicit praise to his work and go into biographical details. For example, this:[4], an 2001 article in "Sarmatian Review", goes at some length talking about him. Nsk92 (talk) 13:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note, upon checking that one of his books has mildly significant library holdings, I changed to a keep. DGG (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Artful Dodge, the literary magazine that he founded. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why?It is usual for editors of mazines to have pages of their own apart form the magazine's page. And Bourne is an accomplished poet and translator, independent of being an editor.Elan26 (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphim♥Whipp 23:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hillaeometry[edit]

non-notable neologism. slakr^\ talk / 23:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced nonsense. WillOakland (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, Non-notable neologism, unsourced. -- Qaddosh|^talk|contribs 00:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Agreed, I'm not seeing any potential sources for this topic or its notability. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 01:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, WP:NEO. JJL (talk) 02:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - This page was speedied once. Non-notable neologism. TN‑X-Man 02:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think this merited a speedy delete. --Kukini ^{háblame aquí} 04:52, 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 consensus. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Letter from Egypt[edit]

nn album Ziggy Saw dust 23:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete For an album that's about to be released, I'm finding almost no verifiable info. The singer and the label are notable however. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is it you feel the article needs in order for it to stay? I wouldn't waste my time doing this if it wasn't a legitiment release... Fazio (talk) 01:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is listed on CDWOW with this track listing, cover, and release date, so what is the problem??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.106.134.146 (talk) 03:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a new album by a notable singer, an album that was just released yesterday (the text needs to be changed from "will be released" to "was released", btw). It's expecting a lot to look for many references just yet. I think this nom is questionable at best, but it's certainly too early. --AnnaFrance (talk) 19:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Morten_Harket#Albums. Notability has not been even claimed for the album, and since it was released just yesterday, the album is unlikely to be notable yet. However, it's a valid search term, so redirecting to the artist makes sense.--Fabrictramp (talk) 23:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Albums by notable artists are likely to be notable, but it can be hard to tell how notable when dealing with an artist from another country. I have two minor hits on Google news, here and here ("the most successful Norwegian band of all times"? Go A-ha!). I can't argue strongly for retention, because there's not much else out there, evidently; it hasn't even made it to AMG yet. (Again, it is from another country.) I wouldn't really object to a merge & redirect, but I believe that merging the track information would overwhelm that section of the article. I think the article has value of a split from a notable parent if nothing else. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep What on earth? I see nothing wrong with this article at all. It is a notable artist, well wikilinked, and they clearly demonstrate notability. This discussion should be closed as keep. This article should be tagged for cleanup or improvement at worst. Carter | Talk to me 14:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - are you seriously telling us there's anywhere in the world that hasn't heard of A-ha? This is the singer of one of the most successful songs of all time, of course his album's going to be notable. — iridescent 14:23, 23 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:NN --Selket ^Talk 22:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Murray Banks[edit]

No possible assertion of notability (claims seems complete nonsense as they are practically impossible to source). Stuff that essentially could be proved appears to not satisfy WP:BIO. asenine ^{say what?} 21:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironholds (talk • contribs)
Comment I think he was actually WP-notable in his time. He published books and, in the fashion of the day, records[5] (in those days, people made records instead of starting a web page), and lectured somewhat widely. This transcript (click the orange box) calls him "professor of psychology turned world famous comedian Dr. Murray Banks". He's quoted in a couple of Google Books. There aren't that many online sources about him, though. Note that there's no connection with the musical/film Stop the World - I Want to Get Off other than the title. --Dhartung | Talk 01:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if he himself satisfies WP:BIO, this dead end article is a nonstarter. If there is a source covering his publications and/or his career in comedy, a new article about him would be in order here. B.Wind (talk) 05:55, 14 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, 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. Fabrictramp (talk) 23:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad boy (archetype)[edit]

What looks like a cross between a dictionary definition and original research/essay. Initial prod removed by author without any reason given. WebHamster 23:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There was indeed a reason given, on the talk page. The "bad boy" archetype occurs rather commonly in fiction and in real life, and sources have been cited. We might also simply redirect to List_of_heroic_stock_characters#The_Bad_Boy, though. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 02:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That list article is awful and, in any case, should just be a list rather than a prose article like this. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Nomination made with undue haste. The topic has much potential. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unless there is another article on bad boys already in existence. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 00:14, 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. Seraphim♥Whipp 23:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William d. middle brook[edit]

Article is an unsourced biography that appears to be a hoax. I am unable to find any information that suggests the inventor of the pencil was William Brook. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 23:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~G3 Utter hoax/nonsense/whatever. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]
Delete This page is hopeless per Fabrictramp. William Middlebrook, inventor of paperclip making machine, might be notable, but no proof that any one person really "invented" the pencil. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment FYI, I have actually found some information that suggests that a William D. Middlebrook was the inventor of the paper clip. Still nothing on pencils. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 23:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. William Middlebrook the paperclip machine inventor (not the inventor of the actual paper clip itself) has some marginal notability, but the article would have to be renamed anyway. Can't find a thing on Middlebrook+pencil. Since pencils have been around for many hundreds of years, it's unlikely he "invented" them.--Fabrictramp (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, either a hoax or terribly confused. WillOakland (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even if this guy did invent the paperclip, that's not what the article suggests and it's under completely the wrong name anyway. There's no reason why a new article under the correct name can't be started from scratch, and I would encourage anyone to do so. -- Roleplayer (talk) 09:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is not about the paperclip inventor, but about the alleged inventor of the pencil. Seeing as early pencil-like instruments date back as far as ancient Rome, graphite pencils dating to the 1660's, and Hymen Lipman being the inventor of the pencil with eraser we know today. This is a hoax (and a badly written one at that). Likely made up at school for some sort of report seeing as the creation of the article is the creator's sole edit on Wikipedia (and the poor writing). In any case it has no place on Wikipedia. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Word salad. (jarbarf) (talk) 22:28, 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 keep. Fabrictramp (talk) 00:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Whip (band)[edit]

Non-notable band not meeting the requirements of WP:BAND. Article's author suggests that the given links meet the requirements but closer inspection of them reveals and short puff piece review on the new album (The Guardian), a promotional band page on NME similar to a MySpace page, the contents of which are just gig dates and a couple of trivial write-ups. The author asserts their notability on the basis of their debut album from early 2008 being on a well known indy label. WebHamster 23:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If not for their being signed to a borderline notable label I'd say A7. Absolutely no notability per WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The band are absolutely notable and the links in the article show this. I have demonstrated that they are "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.", which means they meet criterion A1, including an interview with the BBC, an album review from the BBC, an album review from the Guardian, an interview with Channel 4, an album review from the Manchester Evening News, an rather substantial article in the Manchester Evening News, and the NME page on The Whip which includes an article about their tour, which may establish notability via criterion A4 although this coverage may not count as non-trivial. Furthermore the BBC interview mentions how one of their singles was selected as single of the month by one of the DJs on BBC6 radio which means the notability criterion A11. Furthermore, as noted in the article their single Trash is included in the Kitsuné compilation Kitsune Maison Compilation 3, Kitsune being a very notable record label that means they meat notability criterion A10. They have released several singles on several notable record labels and their debut full length release X Marks Destination on the (not merely borderline notable, it's owned by Fatboy Slim and has released singles by artists such as Armand van Helden who has had two UK number 1 singles, and Madness) Southern Fried Records label. I don't see how any individual can reasonably claim that they do not meet criteria for notability. Furthermore everything outlined above is all documented in the article which has existed for only 14 hours or so. Given that there are so many sources that assertain the band's notability at this early stage, it seems ridiculous to delete it. Personally I feel it would have been much more productive to add a stub template to the article rather than vote it for deletion so soon, especially since another use had removed the speedy deletion tag because he felt there was enough in the article at the time for it to stand on its own as encyclopedic. Antic-Hay (talk) 01:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Antic-Hay. --Bardin (talk) 11:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The band clearly meet WP:BAND criteria #4 with a UK tour. You only need to meet one criteria to pass. Seraphim♥ Whipp 23:54, 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. Looks like he's on his way to notability, but it hasn't been demonstrated yet. Fabrictramp (talk) 00:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Brady[edit]

Non-notable Irish jazz musician who has just released his first album. Referenced to his own websites and by a dead link to a music award for which he was nominated. The press coverage listed on his website is trivial, so I don't see that he meets any of the criteria in WP:MUSIC. He may of course be successful enough in future to establish notability, so I wouldn't oppose recreation of the article if that happens. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established. A nomination for an award, a myspace and his own web site just don't cut it. ww2censor (talk) 15:50, 20 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 --Selket ^Talk 22:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of country's with UK Number 1's[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of country's with UK Number 1's

Not only is the grammar poor, I can't even tell what this is supposed to be about. Certainly, no notability is asserted for the information given, and no sources are provided. Biruitorul (talk) 23:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's apparently a list of countries that have had singers reach #1 in the UK. Trivia. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into whatever article deals with UK music, notable info if phrased properly. MickMacNee (talk) 00:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced trivia. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 01:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per pd_THOR Nick Dowling (talk) 10:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverified original research. I think that this article was an attempt to make a list similar to this one Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:04, 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 delete. Seraphim♥Whipp 00:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sasha Ormond[edit]

Completing unfinished nom for User:Shsilver. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No deletion rationale but I'll support a notability-keep per WP:ENTERTAINER since she played the lead role in film Goldirocks. —97198 talk 14:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The person in question has been in a single minor film and there is no indication of notability for actress or film.Shsilver (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreement with previous comments - this actress needs to bulk up her CV for WP notability. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable actress. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A single role could potentially make her notable if it was extremely significant and widely covered, but otherwise multiple roles are required to satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:09, 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 per WP:MUSIC. --Selket ^Talk 22:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gontyna Kry[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:N. The only source given is the metal archives. No big tours, no notable label, no decent internet coverage. Delete Undeath (talk) 22:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for all reasons mentioned above. In addition, fails WP:V as there was only one source that is sketchy at best. B.Wind (talk) 05:49, 14 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) 22:54, 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. Wizardman 03:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uche Ume[edit]

Nom under WP:N: Non notable Idols performer. The article's claims that he is signed to various record labels are not borne out by checking the record companies' websites; Repeated attempts at talk to encourage the article's defenders to come forward with additional evidence of notability have come to nothing. Ghits are solely this article and Idols stuff. In a nutshell, an Idols participant, nothing more. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Alasdair. Should I make an article about myself? I mean, I'm pretty popular... ;) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:09, 12 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) 22:51, 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 as failing WP:V. TerriersFan (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portable Acoustic Modification Laboratory[edit]

No proof that this even exists at all. Easily fails WP:V, WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:53, 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. Wizardman 03:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dex Dexter (band)[edit]

Insufficient notability per WP:MUSIC. No reliable sources to be seen, only one self released album. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC. Qworty (talk) 04:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:MUSIC. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep band were covered by the NME and Melody Maker as part of the briefly hyped Romo movement. See nme.com for a piece about the band on BBC2's The Sunday Show. Catchpole (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That clip in nme.com's video section is simply a YouTube mirror - appearing there is nothing like being featured in the print NME in terms of notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The clip shows they were featured in The Sunday Show. Melody Maker covered the short-lived Romo scene extensively. Catchpole (talk) 09:36, 19 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) 22:41, 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. I did not perceive any policy-based arguments from the Delete voters that such a list should not exist at all. Provided that a list is not dominated by red links (suggesting it is not useful for navigation), a list like this ought to be allowed to exist if it is useful. It is easy to tell if something is a German-language film, so the list inclusion criterion is obvious. Saying that films are not here which ought to be is an issue that can be fixed in the normal editing process. Over time, this list could expand to include all the German-language films that have Wikipedia articles, which I believe would satisfy the 'comprehensiveness' requirement of the Featured List criteria. EdJohnston (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of German language films[edit]

Indiscriminate list that will never be complete (according to imdb there are more than 30,000 German language films). The Category:German-language films serves already the purpose of making it easy to find German language films. Novidmarana (talk) 22:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and because we already have List of German films and List of Austrian films. Biruitorul (talk) 23:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as content fork due to the List of German films article already existing and listing notable German films. Nk.sheridan Talk 23:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While obviously not disagreeing with delete, note that this is a list of German language films, not a list of films produced in Germany. Though in practice that should make only a very small difference, as virtually all German language films are produced in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and virtually all German, Austrian and Swiss-German films are in German. Novidmarana (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This will presumably include those films that are sufficiently important to have a Wikipedia article. If there are eventually a few thousand of the, so much the better--we will need a list all the more. It's a meaningful distinction & a list can do more than a category. DGG (talk) 02:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per DGG, a list can do more than a category, as, for instance, List of Urdu-language films shows. The subject is encyclopedic, and these lists can be quite valuable. When the list gets too large, it can be broken up by decade, and decades by years. There are no fundamental problems here -- or any potential problems that can't be fixed in the future. Noroton (talk) 04:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't near-total overlap with List of German films, List of Austrian films and (partly) List of Swiss films a "fundamental problem"? National origin is a far more common way of classifying films than language, and this list needlessly reduplicates the others. Biruitorul (talk) 14:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not a fundamental problem. Usefulness is a bad way to judge articles for deletion but a good way to judge lists, and the usefulness of a language-based list is clear. For instance, readers who remember a German-language film but who don't know the name or whether or not it was Austrian or Swiss should have a German-language list to look it up. If the reader knows the film is Austrian, then looking at the Austrian lists is the quickest way to find the name. The list could also be useful in other encyclopedic ways (helping readers browse among films that may have influenced each other across borders, for instance.) If a lot of the content is on the List of German films, so what? Wikipedia can spare the bytes if editors can spare the time to edit the different pages. A lot of the same content is on different Wikipedia pages. It would be a publishing problem if this were a paper encyclopedia. Once the list becomes so large that it has to be broken apart into several articles, it will probably resemble the year-in-film articles (which seem to be biased toward English-language films right now, see 2000 in film, for instance). It seems to me that a fundamental problem would be something that makes basic quality (or comprehensiveness) impossible or extremely hard. That's not the case here. And when you talk about "common" you mean "common at this moment", but Wikipedia grows, and it doesn't seem like a huge leap to expect it to grow in this direction. While not a fundamental problem, it could be a problem to have editors' efforts divided on similar pages. At the moment, the list is so bad that the best addition to it would be a lengthy "See also" section with links to all the various lists of films in the German language. Noroton (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This list has redlinks that can't be captured via a category, and therefore it's handy to spot where the gaps are in getting notable films an article. Lugnuts (talk) 07:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nein! (translated: Delete!) - A wildly incomplete list with huge gaps and many missing classics. It's a great idea, but it doesn't work in this format. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Germany alone produces so many movies each year that they can't all be listed; redlinks makes the problem even worse. Quite a few European nations also dub foreign-language films, so German-langage films stop being German-language. The categories and the German/Austrian/Swiss film lists take care for the rest. – sgeureka ^t•c 23:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For god's shakes seven days have already passed, why is this discussion still open? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To closing admin, there is also List of French language films. Lugnuts (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Given lists that would would reach such a high magnitude of numbers, I would say that they would function better as a category than an actual article. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per DGG. These films that have yet to be included in the list are definitely notable, and therefore passes WP:N. Razor flame 15:46, 23 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. Seraphim♥Whipp 00:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled second Pussycat Doll Album[edit]

Yet another of these articles on future albums without even a confirmed title. This one also has a reference problem and is orphaned to boot. As with the others, deletion is in order per WP:CBALL. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've yet to see a "X's Nth Untitled Album" type article show notability, and this one doesn't, either.--Fabrictramp (talk) 22:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In Rainbows. On another note, delete. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wait until an album title is given before recreating this. Fails per WP:NOTCRYSTAL.--Sting au Buzz Me... 22:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TenPoundHammer's law: if the name of the album isn't actually known, there's no way in hell that it'll survive an AfD. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This or that might happen in the future is not suitable for an encyclopedia article. Nk.sheridan Talk 23:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For crying out loud! Is it not possible to salt all possible permutations of this article title, so we don't end up having the same discussion every two weeks? PC78 (talk) 00:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the usual "untitled", "sophomore", "upcoming" ridiculousness cited in TPH's law. We need to create some kind of guideline, probably WP:UNKNOWN. Nate • (chatter) 01:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Wouldn't everyone be better served if this reoccurring Crystal Ball style article became a new speedy delete category? -- KelleyCook (talk) 13:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be crystal-ballism...again. This is about the 5th or 6th time this article has been up for deletion, under yet another title. It's been speedied a few times too. Acalamari 20:59, 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. Seraphim♥Whipp 00:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Florence Scovel Shinn[edit]

This individual fails notability criteria because there are very few to none non-trivial reliable sources. Almost every single source that is brought up for the article is either from non-reliable sources or sources that offer only very trivial mention of the subject. A one line sentence in a massive article about something totally different is not a solid source for an article. And an article can not be created by just lumping a bunch of trivial references together. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See citation Charles Haanel at [6] , she published 3 books in her lifetime "The Game of Life and How to Play it" 1925, "Your Word is Your Wand " 1928 and "The Secret Door to Success" 1940. Though originally self published , all are still in print with major publishers and 98 listings on Amazon [7]. She is additionally recognised as a humorous illustrator see American Women Cartoonists and Comic Artists in the Early Twentieth Century The Journal of American Culture 7 (3) , 38–48 doi:10.1111/j.1542-734X.1984.0703_38.x [8] (pdf) . Lumos3 (talk) 22:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Haanel is a fellow New Thought author, not a historian -- so is hardly a WP:RS for her life story. Further, the page from his book offers no indication that she was "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors" (the one thing that Haanel is qualified to speak to). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'd like to see footnotes in a biographical article, but looks a valid stub.--Sting au Buzz Me... 22:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: restored stub is unverifiable, vague and weasely ("...may be considered... follow in the tradition of..."). References are poor-quality, give no indication of more than fleeting, tangential mention in passing, and are not given inline citations. They give no indication that they amount to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (WP:NOTE). Nor does the stub establish that she meets WP:BIO#Creative professionals. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with a big IF.

Comment: I back everything Lumos cites having researched and cited the art stuff myself. But whatever happened to the article as I knew it? – it's been stripped of more than its ubiquitous C quotes. Definitely keep if it can be restored to some kind of article it would have been at the time I was working on it and I did give inline cites. At present am tired and beyond calculating the diff in size from then until now, but it seems a puny stub now where it was more of an article then though needing work. Personally am interested in her artistic career and connection with the artists' group, and as a woman who was financially and culturally independent for her time. Difficult to find information on when she switched to metaphysics but she did and is author of several books still in print. It would have benefited from reduced weasel language, but the gatekeeper of the article then (who didn't trust the artist side of her life apparently, and challenged my cites) was too difficult to deal with. Like to see it stay and improved since Schinn serves as a verifiable historical ground to the re-invention claims of her more recent so-called metaphysical/authorial successors, showing the age and legacy of "new thought"sters. She serves as a link with the Theosophists too as I recall. Get the impression that it's been self-destructed as happens with this kind of article. Btw I've been working on Callas and there's no comparison in terms of notability but it doesn't mean Schinn isn't notable in her own right – she's a second-tier artist at least. Thanks for the notice though, appreciate it, Julia Rossi (talk) 09:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Julia: the "article as [you] knew it" was mostly an extended quote-farm, with a couple of small sections on her artistic period that were cited to commercial blurbs and an exhibition catalogue -- hardly WP:RS. It can be found here. I don't think there's a single solid source in the entire thing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are enough non-trivial sources in the article to show notability - in fact far more online sources than would be expected of anyone who was active way before the Internet age. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hrafn, it was indeed a quote farm from her books but the books were references when there wasn't much else. Maybe someone with better skills could have brought it together more editorially. My interest as you know from the talk page was in the art background/cultural contribution. My point was that though she was not in the league of super artists (which was only possible from the American abstract expressionists onwards) her works are being sold online, recorded in catalogues and included in catalogue essays which makes her a second tier (gallery) artist, as I've said. If she were a first-tier (museum) artist with solo shows, own catalogues and biographies it would be different. Imo, she was of a time when that was unlikely to happen with women in groups of artists, she's been reified by historians, and the gallery/dealer provides the refs as they do. To say she isn't notable (or worthy of scholarship) is too rigorous for her status when she isn't from the mass media/promotional/internet age. The article would have been better in my eyes if it had been built from her art life, then segued to her avocation as a spiritualist. Both ways she was part of vanguard movements. You know I felt some people's standards were a touch demanding for it, but whether Schinn stays or goes, she's notable. It seems a pity that now, with all those references, the guts seemed to have fallen out of the article itself. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"but [her] books were references when there wasn't much else" = no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" = good reason for turning it into a redirect. I haven't said that she isn't worthy of scholarship, I have said (both here and on the article's talk) that no evidence of such scholarship has turned up. Unless and until it does, we have problems with WP:NOTE & WP:V. My whole point of challenging these sorts of articles is to force its supporters (who are far more likely to have access to such scholarship than I do) to come up with it. Sometimes they do, many times they don't, and the article ends up being redirected or deleted, per WP:NOTE). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Three books is enough to establish notability. One of these books here is #25,749 at Amazon. Not too shabby. Madman (talk) 04:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the number of books is not at issue -- the issue is whether they are: (1) WP:RSs (2) are independent & (3) provide "significant coverage". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC) Oh you mean her own works -- there is no sales-related criteria for notability in WP:BIO. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. - easily meets WP:V and WP:N. The article needs substantial improvement, but that's not a reason to delete. This author is notable for writing a modest historic classic of the affirmation genre, The Game of Life and How to Play it. That little 96 page book has been published around the world in many languages and adapted into just about every format a book can be in - print, audio, anthologies, even card decks... The author gets over 600 hits in Google Books - not web pages, but mentions in printed books. Definitely, this is a keeper. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 09:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Hranf, why do you expect scholarship before an article is worth keeping? This is Wikipedia, a source of verifiable information of the noteworthy. Let's not distort criteria here through some sort of pendantic perfection lens, or we'd have no articles to speak of – reasonability is a good range to go by, the refs are not blogs let's remember, and that's it for me, I'm outta here. Cheers, Julia Rossi (talk) 11:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Julia: the emphasis on scholarship isn't mine(WP:RS#Scholarship), further WP:RS#Reliability of specific source types: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (and both WP:NOTE & WP:BIO explicitly rely on WP:RS for establishing notability). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An article on someone notable in two different ways should be deleted? It has sources which are reliable, based on any reasonable interpretation of the RS guideline. They let us write an informative article helpful to someone who wants information on its subject - the whole reason for wikipedia's existence. Sure, it has problems, but so does everything else at Wikipedia and the whole world too. No problems that argue for deletion.John Z (talk) 05:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and NYT obituary [9] and 18 mentions in the NY Times, dating back to 1899.John Z (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/query: Wondering aloud here -- looking at where it was when I was expanding it here[10]'pared to what it is now (and not only my work has been radically "boned"); and Hrafn's reply on the talk page: For the umpteenth time read the bloody policy! A comnercial blurb advertising her book for sale is not a reliable source! Not only is this a clear violation of WP:RS, it is also a violation of WP:PEACOCK. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk] I'm wondering if that someone is pwning the article, and maybe needs to take a wiki type break? So much great energy could be more positively used don'cha think? Julia Rossi (talk) 02:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (1) your "expanding" was on the basis of a bunch of commercial blurbs whose purpose was the sale of Shinn's work and an "exhibition catalog" -- are you claiming that WP:RS doesn't apply to you? (2) The source that Madman2001 added was to a Barnes&Noble blurb advertising one of her books, I reverted citing WP:RS, he counter-reverted with an edit summary of "don't be silly". Under the circumstances, I don't think it was unreasonable for me to bring his attention to the policy in question in a fairly blunt manner. It seems that in the New Thought neck of the woods that WP:RS (and WP:V) is just something that applies to other people. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:55, 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. Seraphim♥Whipp 23:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Bailey[edit]

Player has yet to play in a fully-pro league failing notability at WP:ATHLETE --Jimbo^[online] 21:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 21:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 22:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:ATHLETE, point two to be specific, as well as general WP:BIO criteria per [11] and [12]. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 22:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATHLETE failure. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE, and pushes it on WP:BIO Wiki Zorro 22:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreement with previous comments. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:14, 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 delete. Fabrictramp (talk) 00:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pirates of the Empire (game mod)[edit]

Fails WP:Notability, WP:Verifiability and WP:Writing about fiction. Checked for sources, but didn't get very far with only 8 google hits (forums and directory entry.) Marasmusine (talk) 21:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Marasmusine (talk) 21:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable, with no independent reliable third party sources to verify. I suspect this might even be an article created by the makers of the mod, but even if it isn't this article should still be deleted. Randomran (talk) 16:55, 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. John254 05:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Buckman[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. No notability of small time CEO. Article is NPOV, and self-Authorship of page. All references are to articles written by himself. Businesses touted on page are completely non-notable in their own right. KelleyCook (talk) 21:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reads like a PR flack wrote it, but Buckman is certainly notable for founding Lyris at least, the first commercial e-mail list host (its article needs some cleansing of marketing-speak as well). --Dhartung | Talk 22:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. BookMooch has received coverage in New York Times and Wall Street Journal (see the BookMooch page for links) and I'd say Magnatude is notable as well. Could use improvement; there are several interviews of Buckman online for additional references. Msaari (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: User's first edit on Wikipedia. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 22:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. EFF board member. BookMooch idea is notable and newsworthy, e.g. The Guardian.--Transangst (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: User's first edit on Wikipedia. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 22:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Magnatune has had significant impact as a Creative Commons businesses not only because he was first in seeing the commercial potential of combining open licensing (allowing sharing and remixing) with no Digital Rights Management music downloads - there can be no doubt Magnatune inspired sites like Jamendo. See Economist, USA Today. One of the few (only?) businessman who has been on the CC board (and currently sits on the EFF board) that actually runs a financially successful business on open licensing principals.Fourstones (talk) 16:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: User's second edit on Wikipedia. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 22:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Buckman is a key figure in the global open culture movement: my case study on Magnatune, authored for Open Rights Group, details the distinctive and pioneering features of this "open music" record label. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhholloway (talk • contribs) 19:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: User's first edit on Wikipedia. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 22:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note: I do not recommend a non-admin close to this AfD. Closing admin: please check the talk page for the details. Thank you. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 21:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Whatever the deficiencies are in the article's composition, the subject's notability is not lacking. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Founded BookMooch which seems to pass WP:WEB. The sources are thin, but he seems to just barely pass WP:N. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A bit shaky in terms of sources, but I found one with a quick Google search; there are bound to be more. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 22:17, 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 Speedy keep. Subject clearly meets WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 17:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Tardif[edit]

A footballer who has played in some minor league teams, but the article has no significant biographical sources and players at this level rarely achieve significant notice. Guy (Help!) 21:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 22:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 22:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Portsmouth F.C. are hardly a "minor league team", and neither, at the time he played for them, were Oxford United F.C.. if those first team claims can be verified, this easily surpasses notability standards. Grutness...wha? 01:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Soccerbase link in the article verifies these claims. I also double-checked on allfootballers.com, a subscription site which gives full stats for all 38,000 players to have played in the Football League, and his stats on there matched too. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has played professionally. Just because he plays for a small club now doesn't mean he didn't meet notability already. matt91486 (talk) 01:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He played for Portsmouth F.C. which is a part of Premier League, the highest level professional soccer league in Britain. That alone is enough to pass WP:ATHLETE:"Competitors and coaches who have competed in a high-level, fully professional league (i.e. Major League Baseball, National Football League), or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis." There is also substantial press coverage of him: GoogleNews gives 438 hits[13]. Nsk92 (talk) 01:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Portsmouth weren't in the Premier League at the time he played for them, but they were still in a fully professional league, so your point is still valid ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:ATHLETE, bullet two. There is significant news coverage [14] for the player, so not only does this article meet WP:BIO, but it look as though the individual is competing at a greater than amateur level. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 03:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Per WP:BIO, easily passes. Mattythewhite (talk) 06:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Player made 65 appearances in a fully professional league and therefore passes WP:ATHLETE by an absolute country mile. Suggest nominator do a bit more research in future ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How is this even nominated? Portsmouth, Bournemouth, Oxford U and still not notable??--Egghead06 (talk) 07:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Played for Portsmouth F.C. at level 2 of English football and for AFC Bournemouth and Oxford United F.C. at level 4. These are fully pro leagues and so clearly the player passes WP:ATHLETE. I don't understand why this article has been nominated. Struway2 (talk) 07:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly passes notability. Giant Snowman 10:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is it snowing yet........? ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:13, 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. Seraphim♥Whipp 00:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Long & short winged[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Long & short winged

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, possible original research. Prod was removed by author without comment. J Milburn (talk) 21:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - given the terrible prose of the article, there's a case for nonsense as well, but the material here should be in the article on the respective genus; it has no context outside of it. MSJapan (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see it as being attributed to reliable sources so WP:OR. Also I don't see it as being a notable article. Nk.sheridan Talk 22:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Information about wing length in the insects should surely be covered in relevant articles for each species rather than in an independent article such as this. Nk.sheridan Talk 22:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Terribly written text where even the subject is diffucult to identify. No sources or citations, looks like OR. Nsk92 (talk) 03:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not nonsense, although it's a bit too close to it for my tastes. I don't think it's OR, but no refs are given so that's possible. If there are known genetic classifications of insects (as a group or certain species) as into "short winged" and "long winged" (as indeed there are [15] ) then that should be in Insects or an insect genetics article, or possibly into articles about specific species, genera or families. Merenta (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — user has placed a ((db-self)) tag on his user talk page underneath the notification. ... discospinster _talk 21:21, 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 Speedy close and a likely trout to the nom. Incompleteneses is never a reason for deletion per WP:DEL#REASON. I have already informed the nominator of this. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oakland Raiders seasons[edit]

It's incomplete. Buc (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close Incompleteness is not a reason for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close per Ten Pound Hammer. AnturiaethwrTalk 20:25, 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. Fabrictramp (talk) 00:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Iota Epsilon[edit]

Recreated after a couple of speedy deletions, this fraternity exists only at one college, has 57 Google hits, many of which are false returns. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of notability. JohnCD (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per JohnCD. Napsterbater (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as previously deleted and still nn. MSJapan (talk) 21:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article does not assert notability except in reference to other fraternities, which are a subset of social organizations. Thus, the claim that their social organization is different in that it is based on friendship and acceptance is not notable. Lazulilasher (talk) 22:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As someone who didn't go to university in the USA I really don't get the whole point of this "fraternity" stuff. What the idea? Is it just that a few guys who lack the social skills to get girlfriends choose a few random Greek letters to try to make themselves look important? That's how it looks to me. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedurally extend AfD for 2 days, 14 hours, and 8 minutes to 10:15, 22 May 2008 due to AfD notice being removed on 14:16, 15 May 2008 by 65.246.68.2 and restored on 02:24, 18 May 2008 by Davidwr. Keep an eye on the article folks, make sure the AfD notice doesn't get taken down again. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete geesh this thing should've been SPEEDIED for lack of a reference. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It never occured to me to check if the frat was university-approved, good catch. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT The 2 prior deletions were from this month, so temporarily WP:SALT for 30 days to prevent re-creation. Oh, and people, keep this in your watch-list through the beginning of the fall semester. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:43, 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 no consensus. A straightforward disagreement as to whether this summary list is encyclopaedic. In the discussion the arguments were balanced. However, no prosed commentary is provided to give context or meaning to the table. If such added value is not included in say, the next three months, no objection could be taken to a further challenge. TerriersFan (talk) 23:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Football League team season lists[edit]

We have Template:NFL team season lists and Category:National Football League teams seasons for something like this. Buc (talk) 20:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The intention in creating this article was to provide a summary list of each team's accomplishments, with lifeteam wins/losses/championships. This article does need more work to be useful, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. Also, the existence of a template and category is irrelevant... we have Template:AlbertaElections and Category:Elections in Alberta, but that's not a reason to delete List of Alberta general elections. Tompw (talk) (review) 20:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Cruft/synthesis/meaningless information. As the template included at the bottom of the article indicates, season pages for NFL teams already exist. There is therefore no need to create another page that simply combines all the information, especially since comparing the record of a team started in the 1990s means nothing compared to a team that has been around since the 1950s. The links to the teams given in thr article tend to redirect, and the information claimed to be planned to be included is already present in the team's season article or main article, so all this creates is meaningless interwiki crosslinks to the same information in different places. MSJapan (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"claimed to be planned to be included"? Umm... it is included. As I poionted before, articles that summarise information present in other articles are not intrinsically "meaningless". Also, what exactly do you mean by "cruft"? The term makes me think of Crufts, but I sense that's not the meaning you have in mind. Tompw (talk) (review) 18:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per MSJapan. The article is definitely meaningless information. As MSJapan has already said, season pages for each of the NFL teams already exist. Razor flame 15:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ok, before anyone cites WP:USEFUL at me, I don't really see the problem with this page. It's a summarization of existing pages, yes, but what a nice summarization! Lists are "cheap", and it doesn't matter if they overlap Cats or Temps. This seems to me at least to be a perfectly acceptable "overlist", or "list of lists". Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:21, 23 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 23:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colts-Patriots rivalry[edit]

Is this really a notable enough rivalry? The article doesn't appear to have any refs the prove this and also admits it the lead that they have only been rivals for a few years. Buc (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this rivalry dates back to the 1970s when the Colts were in Baltimore. If this isn't a notable NFL rivalry than nothing is. HoosierState^Talk 21:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How does the mere fact they have played since 1970 make it a rivalry? Buc (talk) 08:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Same reasoning as Hoosier. Pats1 ^T/C 00:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep High-profile rivalry that for most of this decade resulted in AFC Championship Game meetings. I think anyone at CBS or in Boston and Indy would pretty much say this is the biggest one going in the AFC. Nate • (chatter) 01:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a single reference that mentions a rivalry - the entire article as it is (apart from some game scores) original research - Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Currently there is no objective evidence in the article that the rivalry even exists let alone that it has been reported on and is notable. Guest9999 (talk) 23:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether or not it's original research does not factor into this deletion discussion, unless it's in terms of the article's notability. Rivalry articles like this are generally controversial, I will note, because there simply isn't any concrete scale for establishing notability of rivalries. Pats1 ^T/C 18:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I really feel that only the few rivalries that have huge cult status and have been well known for at least 50 or 60 years should have articles. This rivalry is notable yes but I don't think it's been around for long enough. Buc (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, there's really no true way of determining how long a rivalry has "been around." Pats1 ^T/C 19:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - All the more reason not to have this article. Buc (talk) 16:55, 22 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. Seraphim♥Whipp 00:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valet seating[edit]

Yes, it APPEARS that this is a general service, but I don't believe it actually is. A google search for "valet seating" turns up valetseating.com (which used to have a link from this page), this wikipedia page, several pages referencing valetseating.com, and nothing else (in the first several pages of results). I don't believe valet seating is an actual service, but just a marketing term for one company. Elofgren (talk) 20:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete - maybe one company does this, but unless some secondary sources show up, this doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Get a newpaper article, something. Not only that, the Google search also turns up a bunch of people complaining about Valetseating.com's service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Napsterbater (talk • contribs) 21:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article has been on WP for over a year and still no sources or citations, and nothing to indicate notability of any kind. Reads like an ad and seems to be a veiled attempted to evade WP:ADVERT. Nsk92 (talk) 22:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, not notable, borderline spam. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 23:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's nothing borderline about it - it's spam. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no WP:N, no article. I'm willing to compromise and make exceptions....but not here. Merenta (talk) 01:33, 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. Seraphim♥Whipp 00:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Space Is For Stars[edit]

The CSD for the article was declined, but I still believe the band is not a notable one. The author, defending the speedy, claimed on the talk page that they are a) independent and b) have a rapidly growing fan base; going against both WP:MUSIC and WP:CRYSTAL. That is why I suggest the article be deleted. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 20:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete - does not meet WP:MUSIC. Napsterbater (talk) 21:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 22:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is fairly cut and dry. [16] are some ghits. Mostly myspace and other non-noteworthy sites. Also, some news: [17]. One hit, and it looks like a list with merely a fleeting mention of the band. This fails WP:MUSIC. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 22:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, which the nominator originally (and correctly, IMHO) did after my tagging. This is yet another unsigned, non-notable local band that happened to have one article written about it in a local nightlife magazine/website. Fails WP:BAND badly. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:41, 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. Wizardman 03:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The THINKfuture Radio Show[edit]

No evidence this podcast is notable. Ghits are typical podcast links, no evidence of notability there either. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 19:54, 8 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, - Philippe 01:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Think Delete - podcasts are inherently non-notable. No evidence of meeting WP:V and WP:RS, either. B.Wind (talk) 06:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge - with mevio. Article obviously doesn't meet notability criteria, but the network is on may.Napsterbater (talk) 21:15, 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. Fabrictramp (talk) 00:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Codr[edit]

However prominent a figure in the music industry the article claims this fellow is, no sources substantiate it. Only 72 Google hits [18], none reliable, and no sign this fellow passes WP:BIO. Ravenswing 19:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC) Ravenswing 19:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No sources of any kind, fails WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Object to Delete This page was created due to the fact this person is referenced on several Wiki pages (ex 1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversafest#Festival) but does not have a primary wiki page.

Considering most music industry pros are behind the scenes people, and the subject is found on multiple search engine pages (as well as on wiki under "Codr", "D Codr", or "Dave Codr") warrants a page for this person. There are not as many online references as more prevalent public figures receive due to the fact most of the press written on this person was written PRIOR to the internet's mainstream usage.

Just because it occurred before the web was in full effect is not a reason to remove it. I understand the policy of not creating pages for any tom dick and jane, but someone who works with and speaks to thousands of musicians across the country, has been on national TV and is known in industry circles should have a page on wiki. Just because you dont know who he is does not mean that is the case for everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mamallama (talk • contribs) 21:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: We don't need Internet sources. If you can come up with reliable sources from the print media, that would suffice. I just don't think any exist, and no one's come up with any in the last few days. Ravenswing 13:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. In response to Mamallama, at the same time, that he is a professional that works behind the scenes would seem to imply that he does not in fact meet notability criteria. He should still be active enough to warrant recent press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Napsterbater (talk • contribs) 21:22, 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 Speedy delete a7, website/company with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advantage Real Estate Professionals[edit]

This real estate agencies article claims several sources about the subject, but I couldn't find any. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article was only created today, so it might have been better to wait a few days before putting it up for AfD. However, the article currently has no sources and after looking around for a bit I could not come up with anything substantive. GoogleNews search gives only 2 hits but both appear to be false positives[19]. The edit summary (see the history log above) used to create the article was misleading: "Changed from looking like an advertisement". Come again? Makes it sound more like a WP:ADVERT case. Nsk92 (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete yet again, and salt. This has already been speedied twice as blatant advertising (maybe that's the reason for the AfD), and the original author has been indefinitely blocked because the user name closely mimicked the name of the subject company. The article is shorter, but it is patently clear that the purpose of the article is blatant advertising, and the company is not notable to boot. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete - blatant advertising Napsterbater (talk) 21:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, without salt (I'm on a low-sodium diet) Great advertising, but not an article. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I may disagree about the "salt," but the low-sodium thing gave me a much-needed chuckle. Thanks. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:19, 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. Fabrictramp (talk) 00:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Pete Waters[edit]

Completely fails WP:ATHLETE, WP:V. Jobber who wrestled a bit for an obscure pro wrestling federation. No reliable sources proffered, and none apparently extant: only three Google hits [20]. RGTraynor 19:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC) RGTraynor 19:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No independent reliable sources and nothing to indicate notability under WP:ATHLETE. Nsk92 (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a recreated former speedy'd and could probably be a7'd again. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 19:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In which case speedying and salting would be on form. RGTraynor 19:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete - per nom. Napsterbater (talk) 21:25, 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. References added to article are passing mentions; highest amateur level would be more on the level of the Olympics. Fabrictramp (talk) 00:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias Harris[edit]

Subject is indeed a star basketball player on Long Island, but nonetheless fails WP:ATHLETE, having neither competed in a fully professional league nor at the highest possible amateur level. RGTraynor 18:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom Napsterbater (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; fails WP:ATHLETE criteria. — 97198 talk 14:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

page has been updated with an example of athlete playing at the higest possible amateur level — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyblazzin (talk • contribs) 15:17, 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. Fabrictramp (talk) 00:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Mendez[edit]

Fails WP:ATHLETE; underage player who has not played in a fully professional league. Ravenswing 18:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability (especially in a professional sense). Google search turns up nothing worthy - I suspect this article is fact, and if so fails WP:ATHLETE. Booglamay (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Napsterbater (talk) 21:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable per WP:ATHLETE as above. — 97198 talk 14:11, 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. John254 05:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Johnston (American football)[edit]

Delete nn athlete selected in the draft, so nn we don't know where or when he was born - red flags of non-notability- in a modern biography. And alas the article sums it up with his career highlights: "no notable achievements". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional keep If we can find a ref to prove he was a seventh rd pick then I think it's ok. Buc (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional keep - as per Bole2.Napsterbater (talk) 21:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Source added NewYork483 (talk) 04:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an NFL draftee. He has no notable NFL achievements because he was just drafted. That makes it hard. matt91486 (talk) 01:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above NewYork483 (talk) 04:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:N. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 22:37, 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 keep. Seraphim♥Whipp 00:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Morris[edit]

Bio written by someone who "represents the Marketing Department at The Allen Morris Company in Miami, Florida." Unashamed COI. Is the guy notable or is it just spam? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually,that person happened to Allen Morris' daughter. And looking at this the guy seems pretty notable. - Amog |^Talk 18:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources establishing notability (the Forbes and Yahoo articles are press releases). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But this is an article published by the herald.Seems pretty notable to me. - Amog |^Talk 18:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep He might just scrape through WP:N on mentions of him in refs to the company, plus the Herald article and stuff like this [21]. The company itself (founded by his dad apparently) seems more strongly notable than he is though. -- Ka renjc 18:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: That article is a sound source, however spammy the Wiki article is. Ravenswing 19:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Ravenswing. Napsterbater (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but needs cut down enormously. Alternatively, redirect to Allen Morris Company. I have seen more notable people than this get redirected because of BLP concerns that the person is only notable because of a single entity or event they are associated with. Iamaleopard (talk) 17:27, 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. Wizardman 03:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concept rap[edit]

Non-notable term. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources to establish this as a notable genre. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Napsterbater (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:57, 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. Waggers (talk) 12:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mantis Evar[edit]

Though he has a nice resume, doesn't seem to make the notability cut in WP:MUSIC; no non-trivial sources of notability provided. I haven't been able to find any coverage in major media sources. Most of his credits indicate that he is part of a sound production team, versus THE producer (e.g., Butch Vig, Brian Eno, Rick Rubin). Having a song dedicated to you on a trumpeters album does not make you notable (lots of music releases have dedications to various people). Has a tiny stub entry in AllMusicGuide OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He designed Metallica and Gun's and Roses' sound systems, had an album dedicated to him by Eric Truffaz, is being considered for a documentary by Lee Gottsegen, and runs the largest collaborative music community on the net and you're saying he doesn't have enough notability? I've seen so many ridiculous articles on wikipedia left up and you're going to delete this? Also, its not a song dedicated to him, that album is called "Mantis" and the whole album was dedicated to him.Ryan.rogalski (talk) 17:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You won't find any of those criteria (dedications, designing someone's sound system) in WP:MUSIC. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At that point, however, the creative professionals part of WP:BIO would be the standard to apply. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I see no evidence that this person meets that section of WP:BIO either. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say I disagree. It's just, if you're going to apply a standard, make sure it's the right one. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply not notable. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. If that documentary ever comes out, this could change, but nothing yet indicates notability. Napsterbater (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:58, 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. At present, the calls to keep are unanimous with the exception of the nominator, so there is not a consensus for deletion. That leaves me considering whether the article is in violation of core policies, and have registered that Smilerpt has found a source which is not really encyclopedia material (more a how-to guide), but a look at [22] indicates that the website this was published on has some fact-checking and reviewing before publishing things, and might be reliable enough, and the link does alleviate the worst of the WP:V concerns as well as the issues with the article being unsourced. If nothing else, it is evidence that the term is real and not made-up or original research. I am calling this a keep for now. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trivela[edit]

Where are the credible third person sources in English or Portuguese to prove notability and Google hits don't count! Dwanyewest (talk) 21:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As I said when I removed the prod tag there are loads of hits for 'Trivela+Quaresma' at Google News. My Portuguese is very rudimentary but I can see that many of these are about this subject, including some in French and German which I am better able to understand. I'm not quite sure why these sources "don't count". There is no requirement for sources to be in English. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is not whether they are sources are in English or not its whether the sources to support the information is credible and notable observe its not that hard to grasp WP:RS,WP:N.Dwanyewest (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is credible third person sources to support statements. Otherwise delete Dwanyewest (talk) 23:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My impulse is to keep pending sources, but I don't have any sources to offer. It's a real technique, but notable? I'm inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt. I'll see if I can track down a source or two that would qualify as independent and reliable. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 02:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's a real and sometimes amazing technique as we can see in these two Roberto Carlos goals: against France [23] and against Tenerife [24], [25], the last one called the "impossible goal". I speak Portuguese and I also couldn't find any non visual sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caiaffa (talk • contribs) 05:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:13, 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, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am Portuguese, and I can comment on this soccer techique. Visual evidences can be found at google related to the Footballer Ricardo Quaresma, some of the links: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNoFJTOEUPg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smilerpt (talk • contribs) 00:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another source but non-visual: http://www.howtodothings.com/sports-recreation/how-to-execute-the-trivela —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smilerpt (talk • contribs) 00:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I swear its like communicating with retards sometimes the article must have reliable sources and a cert notability read the guidelines. WP:RS,WP:N. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"retards" - I am freely trying to contribute. If my comment are not accurate that's ok, but you don't need to call the users retards! I don't really think that's the practice or either the spirit of wikipedia, is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.22.156.183 (talk) 11:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still about the retards, I think you should read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.22.156.183 (talk) 11:35, 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 per consensus. Also deleting the recently created fork per same consensus. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beanie Babies Official Club[edit]

Non notable group. Rob Banzai (talk) 16:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notice and reminder to closing admin:This discussion may have a lot of "deletes" early on. But these all came within a few hours following the time it was proposed for deletion. I (the creator) initially placed the ((Underconstruction)) tag on the page for a good reason, and I have since added a few references. I have plans to add many more in the future, but this is just the beginning, and I am working on a series of articles that take a long time to construct. Please keep in mind that decisions to keep or delete are NOT based on numbers of votes, but rather, points being made.Xyz7890 (talk) 18:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article has an ((inuse)) tag on it; clearly the article was just made and is under construction. I don't think the article is even talking about the same Beanie Babies Official Club that I remember -- I seem to recall sending some money to Ty in the late 1990s and becoming an actual card carrying member (I was 12, okay?). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will not hold your youthful beanie fixations against you. I still think that initial statement is pretty descriptive and is why I put the AfD in even though the article is under construction: "The Beanie Baby of the Month program is a program in which members can enroll to receive a Beanie Baby by mail each month for a 12-month period." Rob Banzai (talk) 17:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The ((Underconstruction)) tag is there for a good reason. The article is, literally, under construction. What you first saw is only the tip of the iceberg. I have added several references to the article since you proposed it for deletion, enough for the article to be considered notable.Xyz7890 (talk) 18:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No notability assertion whatsoever. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to indicate notability of any kind. Also, looks like WP:ADVERT. Nsk92 (talk) 19:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is not an advertisement. Most Beanie Babies have been retired, and therefore, any articles about them are about history.Xyz7890 (talk) 18:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Insignificant sources, no notability. If you can't write more than a sentence regarding the topic, it's insignificant. 6mat1 (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Even expanded it wouldn't meet notability. Napsterbater (talk) 21:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP (Read comments, please): This article, as someone mentioned above, IS under construction. I have been undertaking a lengthy project in the past year or so to write a series of Wikipedia articles about Beanie Babies. Obviously, with more than 1000 of them made, it is not practical to have articles on single Beanie Babies, so instead, I have been writing a smaller number of article (about a dozen or so) on different categories of Beanie Babies.

Beanie Babies ARE notable. You can see this page to have a sense of how many books have been written about them (at least 2300). Not all the information that gives them notability can be found on the web. Still, the series of articles I have been writing (in Category:Beanie Babies) DOES qualify by Wikipedia standards. The purpose of these articles is to tell the unusual facts about many of the individual beanies, strictly that from third-party, reliable sources. During the 1990s, Beanie Babies were a very popular fad, and they were talked about by everyone wherever you went. They are not some obscure phenomenon. They are not my youthful fixation either. I am 47 now - I must have been in my mid- to late-30s then.

Nor is this article an advertisement. Most Beanie Babies are long retired now. So this and other similar articles are not promoting the product. They are actually about something historical, just like Cabbage Patch Dolls or Care Bears, things my kids had when they were little.

My plans for writing about Beanie Babies involve doing them one at a time, mostly in alphabetical order. I expect this effort to take a year or longer, as I have gotten only a little help. But the more I write, the more references will appear. The bottom line, regardless how many of you say delete here, if a topic meets Wikipedia's criteria, it should be kept.Xyz7890 (talk) 23:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move To Clubby Beanie Babies and remove the Beanie Baby of the Month section. Beanie Baby of the Month can be covered in a full article about the Beanie Baby Official Club article later although the language should reflect that people "could" do stuff as opposed to "can". The language of that section at the moment does read like an advert though I am sure that wasn't the intention. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE (Update): I have added some references to the article. Xyz7890 (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I stand by my original nomination. The Beanie Babies club is not notable (yet), even if Beanie Babies are. Unless there is something notable about the club itself it doesn't belong here, or at best should be part of the Beanie Babies main article. Is the club notable for number of members, length of existence, service to the community? In the end it's not my choice, it's up to the voting editors. I think the system works well and if you can establish notability your article will (of course) remain. It's not personal and I understand you are intending to put alot of work in it but quantity of work does not change the need for notability.Rob Banzai (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. The three references listed in the article go some way to show notability per WP:N, but they are certainly not enough, in my opinion. Nsk92 (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These three references are just the beginning. Writing on Wikipedia takes a long time, and this page shows over 2300 books that have been written on Beanie Babies, many of which describe interesting, unusual things about individual beanies. The work I have been doing on a large number of Beanie Baby articles can be referenced from these books. I own a few, and this entire project has been taking me a lot of research. Meanwhile, this article should be kept for now, and possibly relisted for deletion if not improved within a few months. Also, the decision here is not made based on votes or numbers, but on the merit of points made.Xyz7890 (talk) 05:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or, preferably, Merge to Beanie Baby. I had decided that I could not be involved in this as an administrator as my earlier involvement in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beanie Babies involved in lawsuits makes me feel tangentially involved in this one. I do not believe there is sufficient stand-alone notability to warrant a separate article for these. I do feel a merge would be appropriate, as the Beanie Baby article is not of such size that a merge of pertinent information would overwhelm it. I agree that it can take time to establish notability, but I don't believe that articles should hang around in article space for months while people attempt to do so. If notability can be established at a later time, this article can be created then. I must also note that while investigating to see what other Beanie Baby articles are currently existing, I discovered that during the active AfD of this article, it was split by the article's creator, here, to Beanie Baby of the Month. Splitting an article during an active AfD gives a strong impression of attempting to game the system, even if that was not the intent. Multiplying an article that is under consideration for deletion should not be done; if a spin-off is necessary, it should be done after the AfD is closed with some variation that results in keep. If this debate closes as delete, I believe the spin-off article should be deleted as well, as the information was included in consideration for this AfD until it was split on May 18th. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Moonriddengirl: splitting off a new article while the present one is being considered for deletion is very inappropriate. If the result of the present AfD is delete, the spin-off fork article Beanie Baby of the Month should be deleted as well. Nsk92 (talk) 13:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment merging this or other similar articles to the main Beanie Baby article would make that article too long and impracticl. That is the reason for having separate ones like these. Beanie Babies are very, very notable. They were one of the biggest fads of the late 90s, so much that they had a tremendous impact on popular culture, and were on everyone's mind's. They were collected by millions around the world. Especially many individual Beanies have stories behind them that can be referenced in encyclopedic fashion. There were thousands of books written on Beanie, and they influenced a lot of the media. All this makes them worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia.Xyz7890 (talk) 13:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, Beanie Babies are worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia, and they are included on Wikipedia in the main article and in some subarticles about notable issues. This doesn't make every series of Beanie Baby notable, however. Wikipedia is not a collector's guide, so I'm not sure the value added of articles separately documenting series. If the information would overwhelm the parent article, then I would personally argue to delete this article and its fork unless some special notability can be documented. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:59, 23 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 - non-notable, no sources at all. Bearian (talk) 14:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bimini bay[edit]

Non-notable "development". Rob Banzai (talk) 16:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~merge~~ refirect to ~~Holmes Beach, Florida~~Bimini. It is notable enough for it's own article: it appears on Multimap, and as such meets the requirements of WP:NPT, However, there is nothing of any real note in the article as it stands, so for the time being should be placed in a parent article until it grows up. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment I realise now that my search showed me Bimini Bay in Florida, not the one in the Bahamas. I can't find the Bahamas on multimap, but the place does appear to exist as this report shows. The ones who agreed with me before - do you want to change your stance? StephenBuxton (talk) 11:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bimini.You're right, Stephen, I was confusing the two as well. Glad you picked up on this. --AnnaFrance (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Per StephenBuxton.Delete I guess I can't argue that there's not much to merge, nor is it verifiable that it exists. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Excellent disposition. --AnnaFrance (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - What's there to merge? Napsterbater (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:58, 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. If anyone does want to transwiki this, let me know. Seraphim♥Whipp 23:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon ShinyGold[edit]

Non-notable Pokemon mod. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 16:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable mod; individual mods/hacks of games aren't notable on their own. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable on it's own; no third-party sources readily available to assert notability. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above. Non-notable mod, non-official Nintendo game. No sources. This article has many problems. Zero Kitsune (talk) 21:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Are there any pokemon wikis this article could go in? Seems to be a lot of work to just delete. Rules is rules, though. Napsterbater (talk) 21:49, 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 G11 by PeterSymonds . Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FrankFormer[edit]

Non-notable device. Reads like promotional piece. Rob Banzai (talk) 15:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - for WP:SPAM. StephenBuxton (talk) 15:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G11 Spam, advertisement... So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:09, 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 G12 by WBOSITG. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Rhodes[edit]

No independent sources to demonstrate notability. Biruitorul (talk) 15:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete - lack of notability aside (although there may be some sources out there to verify notability), it is a copyright violation - the article is largely copied from her website. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article did not have the AFD tag on the page. I was going to add it after reverting the copyright violations. However, there was no earlier version to revert to, so I added the CSD tag, as per WP:SCV. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:13, 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. Seraphim♥Whipp 00:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HTC ExtUSB[edit]

Notability, this proprietary port is only on a select few products from a single corporation and really doesn't add anything special over other companies phone dongle products. It has hardly any edits and has been tagged as unreferenced since December 2007 KelleyCook (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a particular USB connector. Hard to see how it could be notable. DGG (talk) 15:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable piece of equipment Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've got one of these, never even knew it was different. Napsterbater (talk) 21:50, 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. Seraphim♥Whipp 00:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orange paper reading[edit]

Non-notable 'reading initiative'. asenine ^{say what?} 14:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no attempt is made in the article to assert notability Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing to show notability per WP:N. The article lists a single reference which is a broken link[26]. Nsk92 (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry the broken link was probably my fault when I tried to fix the formatting of the page originally. Additionally, I think I may have blown the Speedy Deletion as a recreation with my changes (sorry about that too).Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Let the page stay. The link has been fixed. --Dbaughman0 (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a policy-based argument for keeping it, or something that shows an assertion of notability? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 16:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bible-pushers with no assertion of notability. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 15:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. No assertion of notability. Rnb (talk) 16:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Doesn't assert notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Let the page stay. It has been organized, and now meets notability requirements. -- Jamaicagoose (talk) 20:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page still does not even assert notability, much less meet notability requirements. If I'm missing something, please let me know what. Rnb (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In what way does it assert notability? I see no reliable sources whatsoever. Simply saying "its notable" doesn't make it true. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this account seems to be an SPA dedicated to this page. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability whatsoever. Napsterbater (talk) 21:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per OhNoitsJamie. Merenta (talk) 23:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely non-notable program at a single church which is not even mentioned on the church's own web site. In addition, User:Jamaicagoose has added certain material to the article which is at best confusing and inaccurate: the youth pastor supposedly "began OPR with his first set of letters being sent to the students on May 15, 2008" and it "has become very popular with the kids at Bell Creek". It is still May 14, 2008 as I write this in the United States (where the church is located). Any program which won't begin until tomorrow can't have started yet, much less have already become popular with its participants. Since the program relies on the students receiving the Bible readings on paper via the mail, the students probably won't even receive them until ~~Monday, May 18~~ Saturday, May 17. Let's not jump the gun by describing the future as the past. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC) May 18 is a Sunday. Sorry, I made my own error in calculating when a mailing sent on May 15 would be received. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the date, I thought yesterday was the 15, my calendar was off. I am still new to this Wiki thing so I apologize if it's taking me awhile to grasp the "notability" concept on this website. We are trying to update the article to meet the standards, please be patient. Jamaicagoose (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's standards for notability (WP:N) are still far from being met. There aren't any reliable third-party sources referenced. Since this is something that, according to the article itself, was invented less than a week ago, there aren't going to be any coming soon. The best thing to do is delete this and, if notability is established at some point in the future, re-submit it then. Merenta (talk) 19:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So when, exactly, did this program become very popular with the kids at Bell Creek? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not verified. (Oh, please be careful when using the expression "Bible-pushers" -- it could be taken as a slur!) Ecoleetage (talk) 15:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Utterly non-notable. A local bible study initiative started a few days ago. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to establish why it is notable beyond any other initiaitive to encourage reading generally. A reading initiavtive in a small town in the US does not make an notable article WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information and if this was not on the Bible (for example on Zimmer Men: The Trials of An Aging Cricketer) this AfD would not last more than a few hours and would likely be speedied. BigHairRef | Talk 11:04, 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 to Kamen Rider X. Information has been for the most part clumsily dumped into the parent article with the expectation that regular contributors can best trim it to essentials. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Government Of Darkness[edit]

Just a plot summary, prohibited by WP:PLOT. Graevemoore (talk) 18:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Let the page stay. There was a stub under it in case anyone knew of their actions. Rtkat3 (talk) 3:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- AFDs aren't votes. Please explain why this doesn't violate the "must be more than plot summary" requirement for articles? Graevemoore (talk) 20:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Oy, but the Kamen Rider X pages, of which this is one, needs a reorganization. Most of the character spinoff pages aren't linked to or clearly indicated as such. What needs to happen is this and most (of not all) of the character pages be merged into List of Kamen Rider X characters. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kamen Rider X or List of Kamen Rider X characters (is an organization a character?) as per WP:FICTION and Quasirandom. No real world notability shown in article. First several pages of gsearch aren't coming up with notability. --Fabrictramp (talk) 23:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You could make the organization an organizational section in the list of characters. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:12, 12 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, Lara❤Love 14:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge (selectively merge) to an "Organizations" section in the Kamen Rider X article. Far too much detail, based on original research rather than secondary sources. There is no need to recapitulate every detail in a fictional work in an encyclopedia article about the fictional work. Edison (talk) 14:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go for that. It can always be split off later if List of Kamen Rider X characters is ever created. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merge - as per Fabrictramp. Napsterbater (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (as Utterly Wipe From Existence seems too harsh) - this more-than-slightly crufty silliness is but a small part of something barely notable at all. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:21, 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 Speedy Delete per CSD A1 and WP:SNOW

Trouble on Broadway[edit]

It seems to be a short play, whose dialogues and scenes are described in the article. Shovon (talk) 13:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could have been speedily deleted under A7 for no claim of notability. Can be deleted as lacking any secondary sources, so fails validity and reliable sources. That said, it sounds like it might be a play created by students for a school assembly. Wikipedia is not a place for original publication of works of fiction. Edison (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No context and no sources of any kind, fails WP:V and WP:N. Moreover, a healthy dose of WP:OR as the article consists almost entirely of a copy of the actual play or a scene from it. Nsk92 (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Napsterbater (talk) 22:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if this can be properly sourced and is verified as GFDL friendly, it belongs on Wikisource. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 23:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The actual script of a play has no place on Wikipedia. Editors above me raise good points about verifiability and notability as well. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - This is a script, not an article. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Methinks its snowing Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 21:12, 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 of this AfD was Withdrawn by nom --Ave Caesar (talk) 13:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Iranian sentiment[edit]

AfDs for this article:

:Anti-Iranian sentiment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) Delete per WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. WP:NOR clearly states than an article should "make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source." This article is nothing but original research. Ave Caesar (talk) 13:27, 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. Seraphim♥Whipp 00:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phlist[edit]

A online classifieds advertising website with no assertion of notability. Newly created page, main results on english language Google are only to the site itself, and a blog by the creator about developing the site. Wongm (talk) 13:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm pretty sure this qualifies as advertising. TN‑X-Man 14:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find no results about it in Google News archives. I have no more objection to this article's style than to the similar organization Craigslist, but it does not yet seem to be notable. Perhaps there are sources in non-English publications not picked up by Google News. It could always be recreated. But Wikipedia does not function as a means of creating notability for new organizations. Besides getting the code to work for the site, the developer needs to get someone doing public relations work to get some newspaper coverage. Edison (talk) 14:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Edison. No evidence of notability, looks like a WP:ADVERT case. Nsk92 (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Someone db-spam this one. I find it funny that the Urban Dictionary gives it the def of [27] {smile} --Pmedema (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Napsterbater (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No question this is advertising. --AnnaFrance (talk) 15:16, 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) 21:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collegiates[edit]

Film completely lacking in any notability whatsoever. Judging by the cast list it's a home movie, and the article fails to make it clear if it's anything more than an idea. Also, contested prod. Closedmouth (talk) 13:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NFF. Likely a college joke/hoax (eg "Sequel - An interest of a sequel had every actor excited.So there will be a sequel.It will be called: Collegiates 2:Back on the Feild"). Release date of "September 14,2009" seems very specific for more than a year in advance. Debate (talk) 13:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Doh! Also, User:TylerDBryant created the article. He also apparently stars in the movie, along with Stacey Bryant (his sister?). Debate (talk) 13:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I made reference to that in my prod nomination. --Closedmouth (talk) 13:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I've just realised he's also created a sockpuppet account (I'm on the ball today): TylerDBryant (talk · contribs) vs TyDBryant (talk · contribs). Lovely. --Closedmouth (talk) 13:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Too much crystal-ball gazing as to a movie being scheduled for release next year. No sources to satisfy validity requirement. Could have been speedied. Edison (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under which criterion? A7 doesn't cover films. --Closedmouth (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real outright speedy for this that I can see unless you want to bend a G1 to death. The actors are 'all in the family' there is a WP:COI, and it is obviously a home made movie that is being vanity promoted for friends etc. Negative on both WP:V and WP:RS... Poof... Obliterate. --Pmedema (talk) 19:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn. Was this film actually rated? Napsterbater (talk) 22:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 03:19, 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 nomination withdrawn. Fabrictramp (talk) 22:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Ormond Redman[edit]

Biography of a living person but appears to be none-notable. Justin talk 08:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a copyright violation of [28]. Edison (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Week Keep~~ I rewrote to remove the copyvio. The article was a little confused, and a brief trip to Google straightened it out. There was another R. Redman, his father Roderick Oliver Redman, Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University, & the description in the article was a mixture. I started the article on him--he is undoubtedly notable. Whether the son is also will need some more work. DGG (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

turns out the son is also notable--published over 75 scientific papers, according to the Astronomical Data System (I counted only those after the death of his father, because ADS uses only initials). The confusing use of identical initials makes a G or GS search relatively difficult--one has to actually look at the items. DGG (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With changes that have been made, seems clear that subject is notable and it seems to be turning into a useful article. --KenWalker | Talk 16:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My main reason for nominating it was it was created by an editor whose other contributions had been disruptive. The article was also a copyright violation and a stub. Its been improved a lot since. This is only the 2nd article I've nominated, is it possible to withdraw the nomination? Justin talk 20:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
:Reply Yes, definitely possible. Typically you'd just make a statement that you'd like to withdraw the nom, and 95% of the time that will happen soon. I'll be bold, assume that's your intent here, and close it out.--Fabrictramp (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 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, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Knucklebean Improv Orchestra[edit]

NN, fails WP:Band. Actually, they sound quite interesting, but they've only been around six months and I can't find coverage anywhere other than YouTube/MySpace and the like Debate (talk) 12:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable band. Article doesn't assert notability and the only link/reference is to myspace. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources establishing notability; no evidence that it meets WP:BAND. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn. Napsterbater (talk) 22:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per previous comments. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:21, 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. Waggers (talk) 12:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palringo[edit]

non-notable product; possibly spam or advert akaDruid (talk) 12:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article is an advert for an IM system. TN‑X-Man 14:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely seems to be an advert for a non-notable piece of software Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - advert Napsterbater (talk) 22:13, 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. Davewild (talk) 21:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Iranian Arabs[edit]

I found this article while working Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles, I was only able to verify one person on the list as an "Iranian Arab", so I brought it to WP:BLP. Today I removed all unreferenced names per Wikipedia:BLP#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material which leaves a list with one name on it. Jeepday (talk) 11:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Even if the article hadn't been gutted, it's way too broad a topic that could have thousands of names and many redlinks. Relevance is also questionable. And WP:BLP is a definite issue as well. 23skidoo (talk) 12:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Worthless list and WP:BLP issue. --Ave Caesar (talk) 13:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems questionable. Is it necessary to classify people like this, on religious and ethnic lines? Vishnava (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - poorly thought out, questionable relevance. Napsterbater (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - One name is cited. It's a bit of a small list, no? Ecoleetage (talk) 15:23, 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. Although there are a few calls for merging, the fact is that there is no verifiable content to merge. And to address Razorflame's concerns, all editors (anonymous and registered) are welcome to comment in XfDs, although comments not based in policy are likely to be discounted at the discretion of the closing admin. --jonny-m t 00:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gardmanatsi[edit]

This article created by anonymous user cites no sources whatsoever, let alone reliable third party ones. I asked for sources to be provided 1 week ago, but nothing happened. This article seems to be a fork for the one about Mihranid dynasty of Caucasian Albania. Grandmaster (talk) 11:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Unsure~~ about this one. I have read both this article and Mihranid and still could not quite understand what is going on here. Are you saying that Gardmanatsis were a part of the Mihranid dynasty? GoogleBooks gives 3 hits for Gardmanatsi, see[29]. All three are in French. Maybe some French-proficient editor could look them up and see what they are about? The Gardmanatsi article itself has been on WP since 2004 and still has no sources or references. This makes me want to delete it, as it also does not seem to meet WP:N on its own. On the other hand, if there is some verifiable info here and if there is a direct relationship between Gardmanatsis and the Mihranid dynasty, maybe this article should merged and redirected to Mihranid. Nsk92 (talk) 12:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, in view of the comments below, Merge and Redirect to Mihranid and retain the verifiable content, if possible. Nsk92 (talk) 15:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Gardmanatsi means Gardmanian, i.e. hailing from Gardman. The history of the rulers of the region is well documented, they were the descendants of Mihran, a relative of Sasanian dynasty of Persia. This "Gardmanatsi" dynasty ruled the region during the same period as Mihranids did, so it is beyond any reasonable doubt a reference to the same Mihranid dynasty. I believe this article should either be deleted or redirected to Mihranids. And the French sources are way too old to be considered reliable, there was a lot of progress made in the research of the history of the region since the time they were published. Grandmaster (talk) 12:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, merge and redirect would seem to be the thing to do here. That "Gardmanatsi" is a description of place of ancestry seems plausible. It seems uncertain whether the monarchs mentioned in this article are covered in the other, and loss of data should be avoided if possible. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep First of all the request by Grandmaster seems to be in bad faith given the accusation of the article being a fork of Mihranids. How is that possible if the Gardmanatsi article was created on 18:03, 29 October 2004 and the Mihranids article was created on 12:01, 25 May 2007. As four a source, here's a refernce from a renowned specialist of the region and topic area Marie-Félicité Brosset: "Il n est peut être pas hors de propos de remarquer que le même Moïse de Khoren parle d un certain Piroz Gardmanatsi dont les biens furent confisqués au commencement du règne de Khosrov III roi d Arménie 388 392 à cause de son attachement au roi Arsace III allié des empereurs grecs Comme d après les Géorgiens le Gardahan ou ancien apanage de Gardabanos renfermait les états donnés à Phéroz gendre du roi Mirian v Géogr de la Gé p 145 179 il pourrait se faire que de cette circonstance les descendants de Piroz eussent pris le nom de Gardntaniens Mos Khor 1 III c 43" from Histoire de la Géorgie depuis l'antiquité jusqu'au XIX [i.e. dix-neuvième siècle By Brosset (Marie-Félicité)-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 15:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please mind WP:AGF. My request is not bad faith. It just a reference to the fact that Gardmanatsi dynasty is claimed to rule the region of Gardman during the same time as Mihranids, so there could not be 2 different dynasties ruling the same region during the same time period. Are you trying to say that this is a dynasty different from Mihranids? If so, how come that they ruled the same region during the same time? Gardmanatsi is not a name or title, it simply means Gardmanian, i.e. hailing from the region of Gardman. Also, the 19th century author Brosset is too old to be considered reliable in the 21st century, the research on the history of Caucasian Albania significantly advanced since then. Grandmaster (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Grandmaster regarding WP:AGF. Regarding the timing of the creation, accidental duplicate articles can still be forks and should be avoided unless there is a specific good reason to keep them. Grandmaster's other point about impossibility of two dynasties ruling at the same time is also well taken (if there is more to the story here, I'd like to hear about it). Regarding the Brosset book, that is good, but for the time being it is just one source with a rather brief mention of the subject. Not enough to pass WP:N unless more sources dealing with the subject in greater depth are found. Nsk92 (talk) 17:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I run the quoted text from Brosset through the automatic Google translator and got this: "It is perhaps not out of place to note that the same Moses of Khoren speaks of a certain Piroz Gardmanatsi whose properties were confiscated at the beginning of the reign of King Khosrov III of Armenia 388 392 because of its commitment to King III ally Arsace As Greek emperors of Georgians after the Gardahan or former preserve of Gardabanos contained statements given to Phéroz son-in-law of King Mirian v Géogr the Gé p 145 179 it could be done in that circumstance descendants of Piroz had taken the name of Gardntaniens Mos Khor 1 c III 43". Unless the translation is quite wrong, it does not seem to actually say or imply that Gardmanatsi's ruled the region of Gardman. Nsk92 (talk) 18:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a lack of reliable sources.--Dacy69 (talk) 16:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems like nothing but a bunch of names with no sources documenting the existence/significance of their bearers. 99.226.143.206 (talk) 08:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are IP addresses allowed to vote in AfD's? Razor flame 15:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This does not have any sources, and it seems to be a fork off of an original article. Razor flame 15:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:V. Not a source in sight so it cannot be kept or merged. No prejudice to recreation if the content is sourced. TerriersFan (talk) 00:02, 24 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Y Fricsan[edit]

This is a pub in Wales, and that's about as much as I have been able to find about it. The pub apparently attracts a lot of tourists because it is located near Mt Snowdon, and it is listed on Geograph.org.uk. It doesn't appear to be historically significant, it's (with all due respect) just another pub. A ecis^Brievenbus 09:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. A ecis^Brievenbus 09:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Delete no evidence of mention in notable publications, does not assert notability, fails notability criteria because of that. Atyndall93 | talk 10:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly non-notable; seriously, just because it's near Snowdon doesn't in itself make it notable. Minkythecat (talk) 12:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability criteria . Edison (talk) 14:57, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World tekken tournament[edit]

Prod concern about lack of sources (WP:V) contested by author without addressing the issue (except for removing the statement ("It will be hard to find any public information on any of the tournaments...", and he's not kidding with only 2 non-wiki google hits) . Suggest deletion on grounds of WP:V and WP:N. Marasmusine (talk) 09:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Marasmusine (talk) 09:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability guidelines as I cannot find a single notable source mentioning this event. Atyndall93 | talk 10:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability criteria and lacks reliable sources to show validity of the statements made. Edison (talk) 15:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete last time I checked Evolution was the major world fighting game tournament and that doesn't have an article. This thing I've never heard of is even less notable. JuJube (talk) 03:20, 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 delete, default to keep. In future AfDs of this type, it might be better to consider the notability of each detainee individually, as it has not always been clear in this discussion whom we're talking about. That contributes to our failure to arrive at a consensus here. Sandstein 06:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abd Al Rahman Al Zahri[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Abd Al Rahman Al Zahri

Delete Articles do not meet WP:BIO as there are no independent secondary sources. There are a few inclusions of these individuals in lists of detainees in independent sources, but no sources focus exclusively on either. These entries in Wikipedia are similar to this AfD, this AfD, and this AfD, all of which were deleted in that the military documents used to justify the above-nominated articles are not independent, secondary sources. Additionally, the deletion of the first article was endorsed after review. I've done research to find more information about the subjects of these articles; I found nothing except trivial mentions. BWH76 (talk) 09:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per nom and precedent. It sounds crazy, but being held in extrajudicial detention by the U.S. just doesn't make one necessarily notable anymore. "O tempora o mores! In light of some of the comments below, I agree with keep. I didn't look into things as carefully as I should have. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both searching for both names through the net and google books, turns up no mentions of them at all, I would presume that they are not notable and fail notability guidelines. Atyndall93 | talk 10:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 11:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Disclaimer, I started both these articles.

In January I went to Wikipedia:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard, and WP:BLP/Noticeboard, and asked for opinions on whether the Summary of Evidence memos prepared for Guantanamo captives Tribunals should be considered secondary sources. Both of these articles reference Summary of Evidence memos, prepared particularly to document the reasons they were being held by the USA. On January 24 2008 my query netted helpful, collegial questions, which started:

For a source to be considered secondary there must be some form of significant and original artistic construction within it. If the summaries are something like a bibliography, this is considered a form of mechanical action, requiring no original artistic effort...

I offered a detailed reply. And my correspondent concluded.

Yes, imho, summaries of the type you outline above would be considered secondary sources.

Of course participants here are entitled to disagree with the opinions expressed in WP:RS/Noticeboard. But I don't think anyone can say the assertion that these sources are primary sources, that fail to measure up to policy requirements is so obvious it does not require explanation.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 11:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This specific argument has been addressed repeatedly in the previous AfD's listed in the nomination, and most recently by this administrator (on his/her talk page). Furthermore, it is the rebuttal of the above opinion that led to each deletion. Military documents specifically produced to determine the continued detention of the subjects of these articles are considered primary sources. BWH76 (talk) 12:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I disagree that the questions I raised were adequately addressed in the earlier ((afd)). If our nominator, or anyone else, thinks there have been meaningful response to my attempts to get outside informed opinions in the WP:RS and WP:BLP noticeboards as to whether these sources were primary or secondary sources, then I would encourage them to summarize or paraphrase those counter-arguments here.

Regarding the comments of that closing administrator... In the interests of brevity I only provide counter-arguments in an ((afd)) to arguments other participants actually made in that ((afd)). We entrust administrators with considerable authority. We authorize them to delete articles they think meet the criteria for speedy deletion, on their sole judgment. But, when they conclude an ((afd)) I believe it can be a mistake to base their concluding statements on arguments that were not made in that particular ((afd)). I think doing so can be unfair to those making a case for "keep", because it does not allow them an opportunity to make a counter-argument. Geo Swan (talk) 13:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please note that the creator of the article has asked me to withdraw nomination of one of these two articles, stating on my talk page that "it is in [my] interest" to do so based upon some "informal 'one at a time' rule."1 Additionally, the article creator writes that "some participants will regard multiple nominations as a form of harrassment [sic]."2 I don't agree with this opinion and wanted to disclose this here so that all info relating to specific AfD's should be kept on the individual AfD page. BWH76 (talk) 12:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I did suggest BWH consider withdrawing one ((afd)) because I thought he or she was making a series of similar, but distinct ((afd))s. Geo Swan (talk) 12:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there are precedents, and the obvious logic that not all terrorists and detainees are notable by themselves. Vishnava (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment given the last few days news accounts about the dropping of charges and the refusal of military lawyers to proceed with cases, a good deal more information will soon be forthcoming about the individual people. DGG (talk) 16:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nominator is being dishonest in his claim of "precedence" since there are just as many similar articles that he has nominated for deletion that have ended in "Keep" and "NC" votes. He seems determined to simply nominate all 900 articles for deletion to get half of them randomly deleted, and those that end in "Keep" votes are re-nominated until they are deleted. The subject of the article launched al-Mudhafarri v. George Bush, his tribunal was followed by UC Davis. al-Zahri was quoted fairly extensively by Andy Worthington in media stories, and the Associated Press Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 16:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The person quoted in in the above-mentioned article by Andy Worthington is not the same person as the subject of one of the nominated articles. The person in Worthington's article is Abdul Rahman al-Zahri, a Saudi who said he would have been "honored" to have participated in September 11. The subject of the nominated article is Abd Al Rahman Al Zahri from Yemen. BWH76 (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually the same person, "Abd al Rahman" is "Abdulrahman", if you read the al-Zahri article before nominating it for deletion, you'd see he was the one who said he'd have been "honoured", and there is only one al-Zahri in Guantanamo Bay - don't muddy the issue by claiming media sources don't count because they transliterate Arabic names differently, what's next, "Usama bin Laden" and "Osama bin Laden" are separate people? It is quite clear these are the same people, only his nationality is confused in the media article. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 17:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean - there do appear to be striking similarities between the two. If we could resolve the discrepancies, though between the apparent origin between the two (Yemen vs. Saudi Arabia) and also rectify the quotes - the quotes don't match up, nor have I found the quote Worthington cited in court docs - I would reconsider this. As for your personal attacks and assuming bad faith, I've already addressed this conduct previously. BWH76 (talk) 17:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've not found the name "Al Zahri" in any lists of detainees. Where did you find his name?BWH76 (talk) 17:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the more clear you make it that you haven't done your research, the less respect I have for your claims that you can speak with authority as to why articles should be deleted. If you want respect, earn it - as long as your conduct remains unchanged, my attitude towards you will remain the same. (The 2007 Associated Press article "Gitmo panels struggle to assess facts" calls him "Abdul al-Rahman" rather than the proper "Abdul Rahman", "Abdulrahman" or "Abd al Rahman" - but then also issues a retraction stating that they had misidentified prisoners as Saudi rather than Yemeni...pretty much proving what I said), if that still doesn't convince you, look up the Septembe 9 2007 article "Hearing transcripts offer rare chance to hear from them" which again quotes al-Zahri. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 17:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I ask that you please be civil. I do see al Zahri's name mentioned in this article and I see that the AP printed a correction for misidentifying one detainee "al-Wady" as being from Afghanistan instead of Yemen in a previous article - is there something on al Zahri or are you making an assumption that a mistake was made based upon the correction on al-Wady? BWH76 (talk) 17:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, let's be nice, kids. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding names...

Captive 441 was called "Abd Al Rahman Al Zahri" on the 2004 and 2005 memos.
Captive 441 was called "Abdul Rahman Ahmed" on the 2006 memo.

I think it is worth noting that the memos allege that he participated in planning the 9-11 attacks, and that he had knowledge of plans to attack the USA in the future.

The 2006 memo also states he may have spoofed his interrogators, "fabricated" them the stories of involvement with bin Laden, or taking part in the planning of attacks. Geo Swan (talk) 07:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of the lawsuit. The information needs to be added. This articles should be at least be reviewed to see which ones do fulfill the requirements for sourcing and notability. DGG (talk) 16:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. --Firefly322 (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Let's take stock of the new information that's come to light since I first nominated these articles. First, Sherurcij rightly points out that al Zahri is quoted here and here. In the first, he was the focus of one paragraph. In the second, he was mentioned in one sentence. Although this does help improve the article, I still don't believe it constitutes significant coverage by secondary sources.

Next, the Al-Mudhaffari documents listed above (the two are actually the same thing from 2 different sources) are military documents from a Combat Status Review Trial (to determine continued detention of the subject). These documents are primary sources. UC Davis, unless there is additional information, did not follow this case closely - their website has hundreds of primary source material like this. There is no secondary coverage of this that I have yet found. There is coverage of the fact that many detainees have filed lawsuits naming Bush as the defendant, but not on this individual case. BWH76 (talk) 07:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am confident respondent is sincere in his or her assertion these are primary sources. But that they were compiled from documents from multiple agencies, including the CIA, the FBI, the CITF, and the office of the DASD-DA, and possibly the State Department, foreign government intelligence services, and other agencies, makes them secondary sources. In the interest of complying with the recommendations that wikipedians engage in dialog when they disagree, I would really appreciate an explanation why the multiple sources reviewed in the preparation of the memos do not mean they are secondary sources. Geo Swan (talk) 12:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Respondent is correct that some captives launched cases that name George W. Bush. Respondent is mistaken when he or she looked at Abdelqadir Al Mudhaffari v. George W. Bush and did not recognize that it was a package of documents generated because lawyers acting on Abdelqadir's behalf named George W. Bush. My understanding is that all of the documents in that suit are public, in that any member of the public can access them. Abdelqadir's lawyers appeared before Judge Robertson on November 7 2005, and six weeks later, presumably because Robertson ordered the Executive Branch to release to his lawyers the justification for why Abdelqadir was being held, the package was generated. These documents represent one stage in the exchange of documents in this case. There are other documents connected with this case. We simply haven't found them online, yet. Geo Swan (talk) 12:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll try to explain this one more time. For our purposes here, it is irrelevant what sources OARDEC used to produce it's recommendation on the continued detention of these subjects. They could have used coloring books, bits of string, and astronomical predictions to form their recommendation, but it doesn't matter in establishing that OARDEC files are primary sources. The documents that this military organization produced were specifically and explicitly produced to make a judgment on Guantanamo detainees - these military documents were the basis of the detainees' continued detention. This is why the previous AfDs I cited in my nomination resulted in delete.
  - Regarding the al Mudhaffari court documents: basing an article's notability on documents that a Wikipedian may find in the future clearly does not meet our standards. More importantly, even if we were to find and reference every single court document regarding this case, it would not make a difference since court documents are primary sources. Basing an article exclusively on primary sources, especially for biographies of living people, does not meet Wikipedia standards. BWH76 (talk) 07:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am afraid I feel I have to repeat a point I made earlier. Respondent continues to assert the references are "primary sources". By definition, a secondary sources is one that summarizes and synthesizes other documents. The Summary memos, are "secondary sources", by definition. With the best will in the world I can not make head or tail of the analogy with coloring books in the preceding comment.
    - Respondent points out that the proceedings had a purpose -- to make recommendations about the captive's status. This is absolutely correct. And the memos had a purpose too, to provide information to the officers making those recommendations about the captive's status. But EVERY well-written document has a purpose. Having a purpose does not make a document a primary source.
    - Regarding the existing references to Abdelqadir Al Mudhaffari v. George W. Bush, two of these references are extremely brief, and can only serve to supplement references that are more informative. However, the articles do have references that fully comply with the wikipedia's policies, that are more informative. Geo Swan (talk) 23:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both. They fail the WP:BIO standard. They have not recieved significcant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Moreover, one article, which includes a long speech given by the prisoner is a blatant WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. The articles overemphasis of the prison situation is a blatant WP:COATRACK and violation of WP:UNDUE. These problems combined with the higher standard required for WP:BLP point to an obvious deletion. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there's overemphasis on the prison situations, but that's certainly call to edit and improve the article, not delete it entirely. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 21:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On one single point I am going to acknowledge that Brewcrewe is absolutely correct. Repeating the long oral statement was a mistake -- an inadvertent lapse, from an over-tired contributor. I've moved it to wikisource. Geo Swan (talk) 01:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked WP:BIO many times. I believe the references these articles use fully comply with WP:BIO.

Suggestion above of "blatant WP:NOT#MEMORIAL" must be some kind of mistake -- both of these guys are still alive -- so obviously there is no memorial here.

WP:COATRACK has a dozen subheadings. I really believe anyone who states they have a concern over WP:COATRACK really owes it to the rest of us to be specific as to how it lapses.

Could these concerns hold merit? Sure -- if those who had them would spell out what they were. But even then I don't believe that deletion would be in order. I don't believe that is what the policies recommend. I believe that specific discussion on the talk page would be in order. Geo Swan (talk) 00:20, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Reasonable Doubt (book)[edit]

This has been tagged as a hoax, but I think it is just pre-publication advertisement. The author exists, but neither Amazon nor Google Books knows anything about his book: it clearly has not been published in any mainstream way, and so is not notable per WP:BK#Not yet published books. There are COI issues - the article author Ghenley (talk · contribs) seems to be the author of the book. If it is published and attracts enough comment to be notable, then someone else can write an article about it, but for now delete as non-notable and advertisement. JohnCD (talk) 08:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only google hits all seem to be self-published. If they're to be trusted, they indicate that it's going to be published on the 15th, so the "not yet published" guideline won't apply for long. But it still clearly doesn't meet the notability guidelines for books. FCSundae ∨^☃ (talk) 09:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete several different searchses of news, books, amazon, google etc turn up nothing from independent/reliable sources, sounds like a conflict of interest and fails book notability guidelines. Atyndall93 | talk 11:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find anything on this book, so it fails WP:CRYSTAL at the least, probably WP:N as well. TN‑X-Man 11:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as spam. Failing that, the book is almost certainly self published, since one press release seems to have been spammed everywhere but without any publisher listed, therefore the book fails verifiability, or at least RS. Furthermore, with no coverage whatsoever anywhere I can find, the book is manifestly NN. Debate (talk) 12:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Lack of any references to this work suggests a possible WP:CRYSTAL situation, or a book that fails notability guidelines because it doesn't have sufficient distribution. A redlink author doesn't help its case, either. No predjudice against recreating the article if and when circumstances change. 23skidoo (talk) 12:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons above. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 12:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: no WP:RS that this book has even been published -- no ISBN & no info on it from claimed (vanity press) 'publisher' (Xlibris). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are a number of books that share this title. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately, not one of them is this one. Debate (talk) 22:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Beyond Reasonable Doubt (different book, same title) was a landmark book in New Zealand legal history, and was made into a film Beyond Reasonable Doubt (film) - I suggest that what is here be deleted and the title turned into a redirect to either the film article or - possibly better - Harvey and Jeanette Crewe until such time as an article is written for that book. Grutness...wha? 01:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatant spam, and I can find no evidence that the author has offered a defense or explanation anywhere. --AnnaFrance (talk) 15:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Obvious spam. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:31, 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 Speedy Delete as obvious hoax vandalism (CSD G3). —Travis ^talk 16:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Siberian Technicolor Snail[edit]

This started off as nonsense and now has moved into the "hoax" category, which I guess means it goes here. No evidence this exists. No google hits for common name or "scientific" name, and as was pointed out on the talk page, it seems unlikely that a snail discovered in 1833 is named "technicolor." FCSundae ∨^☃ (talk) 07:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax/joke. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Cepaea hortensis is real but Cepaea hortensis siberius is not.--Lenticel ^(talk) 09:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously a hoax. Atyndall93 | talk 11:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious hoax. This fails the requirement for validity. The article creator has not added any reference, after a request to do so,and I could find none on Google Scholar for the existence of the claimed "Cepaea hortensis siberius" which appears to be a parody of "Cepaea hortensis sibelius." If Technicolor was invented circa 1917, then it is unlikely it was used to describe a snail in 1833. Edison (talk) 14:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Nonsensical enough for a CSD G1. Not that any further evidence is needed, but binominal names take the form genus/specific name, eg "Cepaea hortensis". The final name "siberius" could be a subspecies, but if so this article has jumped entirely over the main animal. Debate (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not WP:NONSENSE, but as an obvious hoax, it is vandalism. —Travis ^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 Keep. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 12:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rolfing[edit]

Uses one promotional website as a source. The scientific articles mentioned in one section appear to be taken from this page of said site, and that they have not been read by the author can be seen by the fact that it simply says that Scientific research has investigated it - not any actual results. This is 100% pure promotion. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having added the cites in that list of research to another WP article myself some 18 months ago I find Shoemaker's Holiday reasoning highly suspect. This nomination looks like bias to me. SmithBlue (talk) 08:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm going to ask a masseuse friend on this before I say anything. That it's promotional is a good reason to clean it up, but not to delete - and what I see is that it can probably be cleaned up. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It IS a reason to delete, if the only source used to write it is not at all reliable. I am not here to argue that there could not be an article on the subject - simply that this article breaks every single criterion of writing an article. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless we can have some WP:RS and balnce inserted in this article. Today it fails at multiple levels: WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP, WP:N.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 06:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Real , important and sourcable. 2 million ghits, which does not prove notability but is sort of indicative. 819 Books about it in GBooks alone./ . The article itself has the necessary scientific articles for notability--that the refs were obtained from the web page doesnt make them any the less real. Whether or not it actually has any merit is besides the point. A nom should check for sources--at least as far as G/GS/GB. It would be just as easy to add a few of the books as to nom for deletion, and that would be a positive benefit to Wikipedia, not a waste of everyone's time. DGG (talk) 07:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that it's a little weak right now, but there do seem to be some reliable sources out there: these Science articles, for example, and maybe also this online news site. I can't seem to access the Science articles right now, but I'll try later — the summaries make them look pretty relevant, anyway. FCSundae ∨^☃ (talk) 07:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keepRolfing has been investigated scientifically - its an object of scientific study. And some editors here want to delete it? The article needs work - yes - but to delete it seems highly biased. Articles in Journal of Clinical Psychology, The Journal of American Physical Therapy Assn, Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy, and Developmental Medicine And Child Neurology. Shoemakers Holiday comment "Some sort of fringey massage, ..."[[30]] shows a lack of understanding, and worse, a lack of curiosity. Rather than slapping templates on new things, Shoemaker would do us all service by not using AfD for some misguided crusade. (Templates have also been mis-applied to Medical intuitive and Feldenkrais Method. Please consider Shoemakers Holiday's criteria when they too come up for consideration here. SmithBlue (talk) 08:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I question the use of AfD for this article (and others that have been recently tagged by Shoemaker's Holiday). WP:DELETE/Alternatives to deletion/Editing (WP:ATD} states, "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." Obviously Rolfing can be improved with regular editing. I am open to editing against policy, (WP:IAR), but Shoemaker's Holiday needs to explain why this case is special, why we shouldn't follow policy in this instance. Here also might be a suitable space for Shoemaker's Holiday to explain why Feldenkrais method and Medical intuitive were also tagged for deletion against policy (WP:ATD). SmithBlue (talk) 11:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as established and verifiable, but might be merged with the Structual Integration article. WillOakland (talk) 09:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is an established form of physical therapy, I have found several articles on it through Google News (such as [31], their are books mentioning it and not to mention millions of google hits, definitely meets notability criteria. Atyndall93 | talk 11:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Real topic, extremely well known. Even if you eliminated the "Rolfing Institute"-style links and were left with only the one section with all the professional journal cited, that alone is enough to establish notability. 23skidoo (talk) 12:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. 819 Google Books hits, including several dozen books entirely about Rolfing. How is that not notable? I'd say that any topic that has had that many books written about it is WP:Notable. Klausness (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep You cannot be serious per John McEnroe Colonel Warden (talk) 14:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The fact google finds a trillion hits does not establish there are WP:RS. They could be merely from promotional sites, see mucoid plaque for comparison. Also, the fact we can find books that cover the subject does not mean those books comply with WP:RS. Finally, if we search the medical literature through PubMed we find scant, if any discussion of this "therapy."[32]Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

when I look at that PubMed search I find 4002 scientific articles about it from peer-reviewed journals the NIH thinks respectable enough to include--and which in fact include most of the major journals in a number of medical fields. What they may say about the worth of therapy is of course another matter, but that does not affect the notability. DGG (talk) 19:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- The example of mucoid plaque actually shows why Rolfing is notable. Mucoid plaque is notable because it is widely discussed in alternative medicine. If the notion has no scientific validity, then that should be discussed in the article (as it is with mucoid plaque). Similarly, Rolfing is notable because it's a well-known form of massage (or tissue manipulation, if you prefer), and that's pretty well established by the existence of dozens of books. If there are questions about the scientific validity of the technique, then those can be raised in the article. Klausness (talk) 15:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The PubMed search above returns 8604 hits. This is a reason to retain, not delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We are not judging here whether it is a valid and effective method for therapy. All we should be doing is noting the many reliable sources which have substantial coverage of it as a notable organization or process. Google News Archive shows 2,440 articles in which the term appears. Out of this total, there are certainly huindreds which meet any reasonable definition of "substantial coverage in reliable and independent sources," including the Los Angeles Times (1990) [33] and (1991) [34] , the Philadelphia Inquirer (1993)[35] ,and other mainstream newspapers [36] , [37] , [38] , [39] , [40]. There is no requirement that they be included presently in the article. Clean up if it has a promotional tone, but certainly do not delete. Edison (talk) 15:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Well-known technique, meets WP:Notability requirements. That said, I personally think it's pseudoscience, but it is nonetheless notable. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a reasonably well-known technique, even if it is fringy. The article stinks, but that's a different problem. Mangoe (talk) 19:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. I know it's not a valid AfD argument, but if it's a massage technique I have heard of, it's just got to be notable. 1719 books on Amazon with rolfing in the title; first couple of dozen all seem to be about this technique.--Fabrictramp (talk) 22:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I have to say - it may be crap, but it's notable crap. I remember it being a punchline in a newspaper comic strip from 1982/1983, for instance. I was 6 or 7, and I remembered that one because it made no sense to me. "...has he been ralfed?" "That's 'rolfed', sir. And yes, he has!" DS (talk) 05:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Checked with the masseuse friend, what she states is pretty much on par with what the article says. May be somewhat spam flavored, but it's on par with what she says. Clean it up. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This article greatly needs expanding, but incompleteness is not a reason for deletion. Rolfing is a well-known and well-recognized form of massage. Eauhomme (talk) 04:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ unless one of you folks who say there are so many verifiable sources actually add some. While Rolfing is very much real, not a neologism or a hoax - that doesn't matter at all; we're not here to come to a consensus about the subject material, but rather about the article, and it fails WP:N as it stands right now. If there are reliable sources out there....why not add some? Without that, deletion is the only answer. Merenta (talk) 19:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I beg to differ. WP:N requires that reliable sources exist, not that they be explicitly cited in the article. The sources clearly exist, and they should be added to the article to improve it, but such improvement is not a prerequisite for keeping the article. Klausness (talk) 11:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep You're right, and my recommendation is changed accordingly. Merenta (talk) 12:00, 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. Conditions to merge as noted by FCSundae have not been met. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Olympics of the Sports Club Dynamo[edit]

Of all the SV Dynamo lists of titles this is probably the only one where one could debate whether to keep it or not. But ultimately, this list is again indiscrimate, as it is not clear which athlethe won which olympic medal. The latter would be necessary to establish a connection between the individual athlethe and the SV Dynamo. Even then there is little encyclopaedic value to a list of this type. Furthermore there are no citations for the claims in the list, what is problematic as the list has been written by a less than neutral and reliable editor (who has been blocked both here and on the German Wikipedia. Novidmarana (talk) 05:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a summary into the main SV Dynamo article, but only if reliable sources can be found for this by the end of this Afd, otherwise delete the whole mess. At any rate, those huge lists should go as worse than useless. FCSundae ∨^☃ (talk) 08:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge in shortened form. There is quite a few issues with this article. Firstly, it credits the titles only to the club, not the athlete, which I think is wrong. It doesn't even mention the athletes names which makes it difficult to follow who exactly won what and takes the success away from the athlete. I think, a compareable example would be, to credit a football (soccer) world cup win for a country back to the club team the player comes from. Secondly, the source of the article is virtually inaccesiable as the link takes you only to a website where you can find the Dynamosport magazine on an index in a library in former East Germany. Thirdly, Dynamosport doesn't seem a neutral source to me at all as it was published by the club itselve, to my knowledge. Being Olympic medals, a reliable source could propably be found to verify the claims but if so, a summary of the gold-silver-bronce medals would propably be enough. List the single medals under the athlets, not the club. EA210269 (talk) 08:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Sportvereinigung (SV) Dynamo does not seem to merit its own article but would be a worth addition to the original one, it also needs to reference good sources and mention WHO won the medals in question. Atyndall93 | talk 11:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unmanageable mess, pet of blocked POV editor. This list was originally part of the SV article which was broken up by that editor in an attempt to protect it from editing to put that article into some sort of shape, so were looking at a circular problem here. Wiggy! (talk) 17:51, 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, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 21:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Men Who Fell[edit]

This article was originally put up for a speedy on grounds of A3, however was declined. I for one think it should still be deleted - it's a not-so-notable movie that only has presence on iMDB. Nothing out there about this, really. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checking in to vote delete as non-notable; the star is listed on IMDb, but he's basically an extra in most of the films he's been in. To the user's credit, he did try to expand it. I'd originally nominated it for a speedy because it started out as little more than a placeholder for the IMDb link. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP is not, nor should it try to be, a replacement for IMDb. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cannot find any mention in google newspaper archives, fails movie notability guidelines. Atyndall93 | talk 11:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:14, 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. In response to the merge opinion, the main problem with the content is that it doesn't specify what competition they won, and that means a WP:V problem because you don't know what you are trying to verify. Hence I am declining the merge request and removing the content which appears to be the consensus wish here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Championships of the Sports Club Dynamo[edit]

Indiscriminate and unreferenced list of world cup medals, although what exactly this list is for is never explained. What is listed is a year and a sport, but it is unclear what the relevant competition was. Furthermore the article was created by a user who is blocked both on the German and English Wikipedia and known for POV pushing in relation to SV Dynamo articles, hence all these unreferenced claims are somewhat dubious. Even if properly referenced a list of all championships of the SV Dynamo would have no encyclopaedic value, given the claim of 2187 titles this list would soon get out of hand.)) Novidmarana (talk) 05:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It credits the titles only to the club, not the athlete, which I think is wrong. It doesn't even mention the athletes names which makes it difficult to follow who exactly won what and takes the success away from the athlete. I think, a compareable example would be, to credit a football (soccer) world cup win for a country back to the club team the player comes from. EA210269 (talk) 08:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Sportvereinigung (SV) Dynamo just like other related articles before, this info does not warrant it's own article, needs to attribute athletes involved. Atyndall93 | talk 11:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely useless. No context to show that any of these claims are valid. DarkAudit (talk) 13:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unmanageable mess, pet of blocked POV editor. This list was originally part of the SV article which was broken up by that editor in an attempt to protect it from editing to put that article into some sort of shape, so were looking at a circular problem here. Wiggy! (talk) 17:52, 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. I am closing with the same rationale as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Championships of the Sports Club Dynamo‎. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

European Championships of the Sports Club Dynamo[edit]

Indiscriminate and unreferenced list of European Championships, although what exactly this list is for is never explained (Is it only for European championship, but then why are olympic medals included etc.) The only source given is the official club magazine. Given that this was former East Germany and given that the article was created by a user who is blocked both on the German and English Wikipedia and known for POV pushing in relation to SV Dynamo articles all these claims of world championships are dubious.)) Novidmarana (talk) 05:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is quite a few issues with this article. Firstly, it credits the titles only to the club, not the athlete, which I think is wrong. It doesn't even mention the athletes names which makes it difficult to follow who exactly won what and takes the success away from the athlete. I think, a compareable example would be, to credit a football (soccer) world cup win for a country back to the club team the player comes from. Secondly, the source of the article is virtually inaccesiable as the link takes you only to a website where you can find the Dynamosport magazine on an index in a library in former East Germany. Thirdly, Dynamosport doesn't seem a neutral source to me at all as it was published by the club itselve, to my knowledge. EA210269 (talk) 08:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Sportvereinigung (SV) Dynamo just like other related articles before, this info does not warrant it's own article, needs to attribute athletes involved. Atyndall93 | talk 11:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:14, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World Championships of the Sports Club Dynamo[edit]

Indiscriminate and unreferenced list of world cup medals, although what exactly this list is for is never explained (Olympic medals? World championship? World record? No explanation in the article). The only source given is the official club magazine. Given that this was former East Germany and given that the article was created by a user who is blocked both on the German and English Wikipedia and known for POV pushing in relation to SV Dynamo articles all these claims of world championships are dubious. Novidmarana (talk) 05:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article may be pushing a point of view by crediting all the championships won by the club's members to the club itself -- even though, when competing at an Olympics or a world championship, the athletes would have been representing their country rather than their club. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one of the most notable athletic organisations in the world for decades. everything here should be verifiable easily enough, tho Im not expert in the subject. I am not sure whether the other articles listed here should be merged or not, but this one at least seems justifiable. DGG (talk) 07:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is quite a few issues with this article. Firstly, it credits the titles only to the club, not the athlete, which I think is wrong. It doesn't even mention the athletes names which makes it difficult to follow who exactly won what and takes the success away from the athlete. I think, a compareable example would be, to credit a football (soccer) world cup win for a country back to the club team the player comes from. Secondly, the source of the article is virtually inaccesiable as the link takes you only to a website where you can find the Dynamosport magazine on an index in a library in former East Germany. Thirdly, Dynamosport doesn't seem a neutral source to me at all as it was published by the club itselve, to my knowledge. EA210269 (talk) 08:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unmanageable mess, pet of blocked POV editor. This list was originally part of the SV article which was broken up by that editor in an attempt to protect it from editing to put that article into some sort of shape, so were looking at a circular problem here. Wiggy! (talk) 17:52, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Wyatt[edit]

I'm not sure that the subject of this article is notable and the references listed don't seem to help the case for notability at all. I also don't seem to see any information about this person when I search online, but I may just not be doing a good job of looking. If someone else can find more info, please do. Thanks. Rnb (talk) 04:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The prose and layout can easily be cleaned up but unfortunately there is nothing I can find which you make the subject notable enough for an article at this time. -- EhsanQ ^(talk) 04:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please dont delete artists on here they shape culture among the masses. Most Artists dont achieve any of this until they die . I own a 1930 painting by American Artist Sela Paisley valued at over $15,000 and you'll probably never find anything from her online either , we are still in the fetal ages of the internet. Please leave everything posted on here alone for the future masses. Dont delete this page for my elementary page design skills ! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankie Babylon (talk • contribs) The unsigned comment was added while blanking the rest of the discussion page. Restored by -- saberwyn 04:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping this article is not a matter of design or spreading the truth. The contents of the article must be proven/verifiable through the use of reliable, in-depth sources discussing the subject. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies on verifiability, reliable sources, and the guidelines for inclusion in relation to notability of biographies, specifically for still-living persons. Also, repeatedly blanking the discussion page and pasting a plea to "shape culture among the masses" will not paint you in a favourable light with other users. -- saberwyn 05:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a patent hoax. ("Destroyed in the chipmunk fire"?). Could probably be A7'd but may as well let the AFD run. — iridescent 05:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. non notable.--Celtus (talk) 05:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete either as a hoax or non-notable. DGG (talk) 08:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources anywhere, the three links in the article have nothing to do with the subject. Almso certainly a hoax:"He has been spotted there on several saturday afternoons high on medicinal marijuana soaking up the sun on his stretch beach cruiser." Yeah, right. Somebody is trying make a joke, not very successfully. Nsk92 (talk) 15:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - WP:MADEUP, WP:OR, no WP:RS, fails WP:BIO and is very likely a WP:HOAX etc...etc....so tagged.--Pmedema (talk) 17:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Speedy tag removed by User:Wknight94 stating "rm speedy. Let's let the AFD run". --Pmedema (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete moronic. JuJube (talk) 03:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 03:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's hard to get less notable than this. Edward321 (talk) 05:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:CSD#A7, absolutely no assertion of notability. A lot of notable people are mentioned in the article but their connection with Wyatt is tenuous to nonexistent and in any case notability is not determined by how many famous people one has a connection with. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment It does seem to be very hard to include contemporary artists and other people associated with art on wikipedia unless they have been in the New York Times. An artist can be very notable in the mainstream art community but not considered notable by the general public and I think that has caused a lot of great content to be booted from this site. However, I've not seen any additions to this bio that warrant a keep vote. It can be even harder for people notable in the underground art scene. I'm not going to vote yet. I'm going to give the person working on it a chance to cite more information. Has this artist been mentioned in any underground art publications? (Roodhouse1 (talk) 03:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Delete per nom...Modernist (talk) 17:14, 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. Waggers (talk) 12:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theodor tarlantezos[edit]

Declined speedy. I can find no reliable sources to verify his notability, and the article (originally submitted in Greek and hastily translated with Google) reads like a resume. nneonneo ^talk 04:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. cant find any kind of source to assert notability, so assume non-notable. Ironholds (talk) 04:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is it possible that this page creation was a mistake? If I'm reading the edit history right, it looks like he was perfectly happy to have this sit at his user page User:Ttarlantezos for months, then moved it to Theodor tarlantezos and never edited again. Maybe he was just trying to change the location of his user page, without realizing he was illegally switching namespaces? Anyway, my vote is to userfy back to User:Ttarlantezos. FCSundae ∨^☃ (talk) 08:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like something that might not even be permitted on a user page -- his resume (there are other web hosts for that) -- see WP:NOT#WEBSPACE. nneonneo ^talk 15:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable and not in English.--Damac (talk) 08:11, 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) 21:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Moxie (band)[edit]

Does not seem to meet notability criteria of WP:MUSIC. Kelly ^hi! 04:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable band, no kind of information i can find. Self-released album implies they arent signed, which with the exception of bands such as NIN or Anathema probably means they're non-notable. Ironholds (talk) 04:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing in the article implies notability, and a google search for "the moxie" fleurent-wilson turns up exactly two hits, both Wikipedia. FCSundae ∨^☃ (talk) 09:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:15, 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 redirect to Root (band). Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 22:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Casilda (mini CD)[edit]

Stubby article on an apparently limited release minidisc. No reviews could be found in a search, nor any other reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:21, 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, Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable per WP:Music. [The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 04:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Root (band) as limited CD releases in the Czech Republic will have very little independent coverage in the English-speaking Web pages. B.Wind (talk) 05:11, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Internet service providers[edit]

Can never be completed Lego K^ontribs T^alkM 03:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the Lego. There is indeed no way this list could ever be completed, despite its rather clear criteria for inclusion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Suitable as a CAT, but not a list like this. KTC (talk) 03:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete far too broad a topic, Prior to the advent of internet service from major providers like Verizon and Yahoo and AT&T there were several ISPs in just about every city in the US so that you wouldn't have to make a long distance call with your modem. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 03:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ye gods, this is so in the face of WP:LIST. Delete. This is better off as a category. =O.o= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. I think this is one of the rare instances when a list counterpart of a category isn't really useful; it'll essentially be just a human-readable category, and while that's good, it's difficult to maintain. For the time being, until categories get improved to be more readable, we'll just have to live with it. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: who can complete this very long list? Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 08:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sheesh. There are (or were) a gazillion ISP's out there. No way this can be maintained. TN‑X-Man 15:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete A very good idea for an article, but as it stands it doesn't meet notability requirements. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it never has to be "completed." It's a navigational tool. Newer readers and editors are more likely to navigate by lists while more experienced readers and editors are more likely to navigate by the category Category:Internet service providers. Categories, lists, and navigational templates complement each other. Most of these companies have articles so just rename it List of notable Internet service providers. --Pixelface (talk) 10:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This list could potentially go on for miles if it were ever completed. Unmaintainable. KleenupKrew (talk) 13:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as overbroad and unmaintainable. If anyone were likely to search for it, I'd say redirect to Category:Internet service providers, but that seems so unlikely that deletion is the best bet. Jakew (talk) 13:22, 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 all. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 07:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

F.C. Deportivo Galicia[edit]

Non-notable local football club in London. Past consensus at AfD has indicated that English football clubs down to level 10 in the football pyramid are notable, this one has never played above level 11 and appears to have no individual claim to notability over and above that. fchd (talk) 03:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7 (club). So tagged. Noting WP:PRECEDENT - I don't know if it's well documented here, but local FCs don't tend to survive very long. Sorry. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete plus fellow league members Willesden Constantine F.C. and Wraysbury F.C. as they are in the same situation. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 07:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all not notable - though I don't think this is speediable. I'll remove it's tag. --Dweller (talk) 09:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Giant Snowman 12:28, 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 Speedy delete. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FORMATION OF REPUBLIC OF JINNAHPUR[edit]

While there may be merit in the creation of an article on the putative republic of Jinnahpur, this isn't it. An unencyclopedic separatist manifesto. Acroterion _(talk) 03:26, 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 no consensus, which defaults to keep. I'm surprised too. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Utah professional sports' frequent use of letter Z in team names[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Utah professional sports' frequent use of letter Z in team names

Yes, that's really the title of the article. Man, I don't quite know where to begin with this. I guess WP:SNOW is pretty obvious, as is original research. But franly, does anyone really give a rat's rear end about Utah sports teams using the letter Z frequently in their names? For that matter, does anyone care about Utah sports teams, period? (OK, I'm joking about that last part.) Anyway, this article is about an indiscriminate list of items with only a trivial connection, and pure speculation about that connection. And its title is unlikely to be searched for by any English-speaking person. Period. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as trivia. All the Detroit major league teams have an I and an S in them (Tigers, Lions, Red Wings, Pistons), does that mean should there be a page for that concept too? This is what we call a non-notable junction. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WTF? <eleland/talkedits> 03:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This is a real thing. The way each name has "ZZ" in it. (Jazz, Buzz, Starzz, Blitzz, Freezz). It's mentioned here.[41] Now this article does have alot of OR and un-sourced claims, but I think it could stay and be remaned to something like "Utah Sports Names" -- Coasttocoast (talk) 03:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is pure trivia and doesn't merit an article by itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artene50 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unencyclopedic trivia. If individual team names are attributed to this similarity it can be mentioned in those articles, but it just isn't important enough for an article. --Dhartung | Talk 04:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm perplexed by the comments dismissing the article as trivia. It's a known pop culture phenomenon, albeit on a statewide scale. It's not speculative, it's not indiscriminate... the sources are there (although they could certainly be beefed up). If Detroit's teams were named the Tigerzz, Lionzz, Red Wingzz, and Pistonzz, surely this would be considered noteworthy and would be grounds for an encyclopedic explanation as to the origins of this unusual development. Is Utah too small a state to be considered noteworthy? (Comments by Realkyhick seem to indicate as much.) A merge would make more sense for those who contend that the subject doesn't merit its own article, and simply renaming the article would suffice for those who don't like the title. -Macuxi (talk) 05:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, we are not out to delete this article because we're biased against Utah. This is a "known pop culture phenomenon" which is still trivial. There is no non-trivial coverage of this phenomenon in reliable published sources; that is the core notability criterion, and this article fails it. <eleland/talkedits> 05:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - As it stands, the article refers to coverage of the phenomenon in the New York Times and other daily newspapers, among other sources. I wasn't suggesting that anyone is biased against Utah per se (see red herring, which interestingly has less non-trivial sourcing than the article in question). Instead I was suggesting that this phenomenon wouldn't be considered trivial if we were talking about, say, Michigan or California or ancient Mesopotamia... places of larger population or greater perceived interest. -Macuxi (talk) 06:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That was a fun read. I'd like to thank Macuxi for putting that together. Interestingly, there are several newspaper articles [42], [43], [44], [45] that explicitly address this phenomenon. I'll say weak keep; or if not, merge some of this with List of professional sports teams in Utah. Zagalejo^^^ 06:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: it's a mere trivia. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 08:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Take a moment to read the trivia guideline you linked, and while you're at it see this. By these guidelines, this article does not qualify as "mere trivia." It's not a series of miscellaneous facts; it's presented in an organized and logical format. Perhaps you feel that the subject matter is not noteworthy or doesn't warrant its own article, and that's a fine conclusion (I would respectfully disagree). However, unreasoned arguments that "nobody cares about this" (or even better: "WTF?") are unpersuasive. Some reasonably large population cared about this phenomenon, how else can one explain the utterly horrible St. George Pioneerzz? -Macuxi (talk) 04:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Legitemate phenomenon, reliably sourced. --Pwnage8 (talk) 13:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreed with Alexius08, WP:TRIVIA. Vishnava (talk) 16:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pleazze. The references as either articles about cutesy team names which mention Z's or, as in ZZagalejo's examples, by the local Deseret News. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Z article :-) It made me laugh. More importantly perhaps, the New York Times and other sources mentioning something like this means it's not OR. --Firefly322 (talk) 20:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keepz, it's sourced, it's weird, it's well... ViperSnake151 20:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Oddly it is sourced in what may be a desperate attempt to keep the article, but yet none of the sources seem to mean anything, for example one source is an average joe's blog which is cited for including the team name as "Lynx" as opposed to "Lynxx", seriously I could not find a source in this article that actually cited this phenominon just antidotal evidence of said teams names being spelled with a Z.Deathawk (talk) 04:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments up, I mentioned four newspaper articles that explicitly discuss the phenomena. Let's not worry about sources, because much of the content in the article is verifiable. Zagalejo^^^ 04:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with rename: Article title is unwieldy and should just be a section under the non-existant Utah professional sports teams. It is referenced and clearly is a long running joke within the Utah communities. -- KelleyCook (talk) 13:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's trivia. Some sources aren't reliable, unlikely search term, the fact that all of these teams names end in "ZZ" does not mean that it's notable on it's own. A mention on the teams' respective pages will do, or a mention in Utah#Sports would be even better. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See my response to Alexius08 above regarding trivia. On the other hand, your suggested merge is a reasonable suggestion (although I personally prefer KelleyCook's idea of using Utah professional sports teams if a merge is determined to be more appropriate than keeping or renaming the article). Mentioning the same phenomenon in at least ten applicable individual articles would be a more unwieldy solution. -Macuxi (talk) 04:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Zpeedy Delete - It's a fun idea for an article, but it's nowhere near notability requirements. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:27, 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 Speedily Deleted (non-admin closure) by Hut 8.5 per WP:CSD#G7. WilliamH (talk) 19:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Combined[edit]

Contested Prod. Not verifiable and likely hoax. No relevant google hits for this unusual, Nigerian secessionist chemist.[46] Two of the books about him listed as references do not exist. [47][48] The other two, added more recently, [49] do not include a mention of Thomas per Amazon "Search Inside". --Slp1 (talk) 03:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the creator [50] has admitted the hoax and requested deletion below. The same editor has also admitted the fact twice in page blanking.[51][52] Is a speedy delete now in order?--Slp1 (talk) 11:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - Very likely to be a hoax (I've tagged it), if it were true I would certainly get more than 4,130 hits. asenine ^{say what?} 05:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per asenine as probable hoax. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry he does not exist please delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yu-gi-oh78 (talk • contribs) 10:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged this article for speedy deletion per author's comment. TN‑X-Man 15:10, 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 Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AutoScreen[edit]

Non-notable software product introduced by company in existence since Jan 2008. — ERcheck (talk) 03:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:N. asenine ^{say what?} 05:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is indeed notable, as it is in fact the only automatic screenshot taker that can upload the screenshots to an FTP server and ImageShack... Haqrefpber (talk) 13:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability cannot be unilaterally claimed by a subject, it must be conferred by reliable, verifiable, and independent third-party sources. Such does not appear to be the case here. DarkAudit (talk) 13:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well, going by that, then I guess you'll have to delete it. The only other third-party sources that can currently confirm this are the various download websites that the program is listed on (such as Download.com, Softpedia, VersionTracker, etc). The program certainly is not as well known as, say, SnagIt, but I believe it has features that make it notable. You might yourself verify this by doing a Google search for an automatic screenshot taker that can also upload to ImageShack and FTP. Haqrefpber (talk) 14:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is established by Wikipedia:Notability, not personal opinion. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk

Delete per nom and DarkAudit. Non-notable software. Google hits for "AutoScreen" too ambiguous. Hits for "AutoScreen+16 Software" are a mere 70, with about half of those being duplicate hits within the same site. Alexa rank is over 5 million (*yawn*). - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last attempt: Google listing. Please show me any other program besides AutoScreen that is listed. Haqrefpber (talk) 14:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's even fewer results than my search! Last attempt: please read Wikipedia:Notability and explain why, according to these criteria, this software is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Thanks. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - According to that page, 'Notability is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity", although these may positively correlate with it.' The point of the link was to show that there is no other automatic screenshot taker that can upload screenshots to FTP and ImageShack. I would consider this "worthy of notice". If download websites that contain the program are not good enough sources and do not provide the 'significant coverage' that you wish to have, then the article may be deleted until other third-party sources provide more information on the subject in question. Haqrefpber (talk) 14:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Now you're catching on! You can end this early by blanking the article completely, which will trigger a ((G7)) speedy deletion, ending the need for this discussion. If you want to. If you want to see how this plays out, then do nothing and watch this page to see how the consensus plays out. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think I'll leave it be, and see how it plays out. Thanks for letting me plead my case. Haqrefpber (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unique is not notable. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:43, 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 Keep - withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure). nneonneo ^talk 17:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A land without a people for a people without a land[edit]

It Was created by a notorious sockpuppet and it may have been part of a concerted POV campaign. Plus It relies primarily on two biased sources, only one of which can be linked to. Plus it appears to have been heavily plagarised from the main source Annoynmous (talk) 02:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are thirty-nine sources. Which two concern you? Powers ^T 02:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as no valid deletion rationale is presented. As Powers said, this seems to be heavily sourced. (And over a year old, so the provenance of the original creator isn't terribly relevant). AfD isn't for cleanup, or fixing potential POV issues. Bfigura ^(talk) 02:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~"...may have been a part of concerted POV campaign" is not a reason to delete the article. The article in its present form provides references for things it says and there are a bunch of editors who have worked on toning down POV. Could you clarify why you considered deletion rather than working on the article itself? Prashanthns (talk) 02:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all my lengthy discussions with the nominator and my reading and minor clean-up experience at the article. No rationale for deletion as per policy has been presented. Prashanthns (talk) 17:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and dig further before nominating for AfD again. The article appears to be well-sourced. Most sources listed are not web souces, but that alone does not make them illegitimate. A cursory GoogleBooks search shows that the subject itself appears notable and that at least its basic definition is correct: 188 hits[53] including some that explicitly refer to the phrase as a Zionist slogan, e.g. here[54]. Yes, the article was created by a user who is now banned as a sock, but that alone is not a good enough reason to delete a article like that without a much more detailed and well argued case. If there is incorrect info here, misquoted sources, etc, they need to be pointed out. I suggest that the nominator withdraws this nomination now and then brings it up again if warranted when such preparatory work is done. Nsk92 (talk) 02:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, now that I think about it, since the subject does appear notable, it is hard to imagine under which circumstances deletion would be appropriate unless it somehow turns out that the current text is completely inaccurate and unsalvageable. If there are POV issues, they need to be cleaned up, but an article on a notable subject deserves to be kept. Nsk92 (talk) 03:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Regardless of whether it was created as part of a POV campaign, at the moment it has multiple (not two) sources being used to write about the issue from multiple sides, without relying on a small subset. It almost looks like the nominator AfDed a different article than intended, because the description does not match this article at all. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentAlmost none of the sources in the article can be linked to. All the sources are essentially copied from Diana Muirs article. In fact now that I think about it I probably should have added plagarism to the list of reasons for deletion. The whole article is basically an advertisement for her article. If you guys want to move whatever you think is relevant material to another article like the Israel zangwill article fine, but a phrase like this doesn't need an entire article devoted to it.

You seem to be ignoring my main criticism. Evidence based, American Clio and Yankee scribe are all the same person. He created the article and he was primarily the person who edited it. The article really hasn't been edited by anyone else except him. The only other edits have been to edit minor spelling errors and things like that. This editor was also banned around the same as Zeq, which says to me he may have been part of CAMERA propoganda campaign that was recently unearthed. That taints everything in the article as far as I'm concerned. This isn't an article, it's a piece of propoganda intended to smear people like Noam Chomsky and Edward Said. As I said if you want to include relevant material in other articles go ahead, but the article itself is cancer.Annoynmous 03:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentHmm-m, a lot of strong emotions here but I still don't see a good reason to actually delete the article. I don't care if it was created as a part of the grand CAMERA conspiracy or by the Devil himself. The subject looks notable to me, there are multiple sources available and an article is warranted. Nobody is stopping you from editing it yourself. I don't know about the others, but I personally would not object to having the article reduced to a stub for the time being: the main definition and a few references. Nsk92 (talk) 03:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I really wish you hadn't nominated this which such a silly rationale, Annoynmous. This is reasonably well-crafted propaganda, an arguably notable topic, and you need to explain in detail what is wrong with it rather than (correctly) impugn the motives of its creator. You cannot expect people to do the research on their own and figure out what is wrong with this article. Since, thus far, only you have asked for deletion, I would ask that you please withdraw your nomination. That way we can close the AfD and start again with a proper one. <eleland/talkedits> 03:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have given a reason. I would think that an article that was created with the intention of slanting wikipedia itself would be a candidate for speedy deletion.Also what sources are there. There are only 3 links below. All sources are pretty much copied verbatim from Diana Muir's article.By the way this article is only a 6 months old, not a year. The entire slant of the article is towards muirs point of view.

Plus, maybe it's just me, but the main argument itself seems very convulted to me. Taking the "A" out of the " A Land without a People" is supposed to be some sorta maliciousness distortion by people like Said? What an amazingly stupid argument. It's basically replicating muir's entire argument with nothing to counterbalance it.I say again, why does a Phrase need it's own page. Isn't it more appropriate to articles about people who used the phrase. Who is muir anyway. Before she wrote this article it seems to me she was a nonentity. The fact that her article was published in the heavily baised Middle east Forum doesn't raise any red flags for anyone. The main point is that the article was created by a an editor with an agenda therefore it must be removed. If someone want's to start it over from scratch fine, but as it stands it has to go. The editor was the only person who edited this article in any significant way. He added the content and sources. He was banned for sockpuppetery. He was banned the same time as Zeq. The articles he edited were primarily middle east based ones. Shouldn't this article be cut off as the fruit of a poisonous tree. Eleland, you can't tell me that this article doesn't seem woefully distorted and slanted to you..Annoynmous 03:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you tried to paste in here a large portion of a talk page discussion for this article, showing that there were many sockpuppets present there. You were reverted, in my view correctly. This is an AfD, not a talk page. If you feel that people should see it, I suggest probviding a link or maybe pasting that entire content in question to the talk page of this AfD itself. This way people will be able to look at it and yet it will not clogg the main AfD space. Nsk92 (talk) 04:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible bias, slant, lack of clickable sources, lack of source diversity, poor argumentation, and copying content from other articles are all good reasons that an article should be improved, not necessarily deleted. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 04:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Article needs work, but is sourced and appears to discuss notable topic. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 04:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If there are problems with bias, then edit the article to eliminate the bias. If you think Diana Muir is wrong about the origin and use of this slogan, then look for other sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article as it stands is completely unacceptable. If you want to delete everting except the name fine. However, everything after the first sentence is biased and POV. The entire article is basically an advertisement for Muir's article. I realize now I should have added plagarism to my reasons for deletion, but I figured the fact that the edtor was a sockpuppet with an agenda would be reason enough. Can't we leave it up for a little bit longer and see if there's anyone who supports my position. 12 hours is all I'm asking for. annoynmous 04:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with leaving this AfD open for the full five days. I just don't think that deleting the article altogether is an appropriate way to deal with its alleged problems. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC) (Also, the article seems to have been created before Muir's article was published, so its existence is not dependent on the Muir article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Keep per metropolitan90. Kukini ^{háblame aquí} 04:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again the article isn't sourced. There are three links below. Two of which are too Muir's article. All the others sources come from Muir's article. I doubt the editor actually checked the sources to see if Muir quoted them right. If you want I'll add plagarism to the reason for deletion.annoynmous 04:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever do you mean, the article isn't sourced? It lists 38 references. Granted almost all of them are non web-accessible, but that alone does not make them invalid. There is no requirement in WP:V or WP:RS for the sources cited to be electronically accessible. Most books are not anyway, lots of newspaper and journal articles aren't either. If there are references listed in the article to books/journal articles that do not actually exist but are made-up, it would be a different matter. Nsk92 (talk) 04:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are reasons to improve an article, not delete it. Kukini ^{háblame aquí} 04:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think most people would agree that the editor who created this article was a vandal who was trying to slant various articles at wikipedia. Well, everything in this article was created by the vandal. The article itself is a de-facto vandal. If something is entirely based on an unreliable source doesn't that make you think the entire enterprise is a sham.annoynmous 04:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point I'm trying to make that this article would not exist without the vandal editor. It's entire existence is a work of sabotage. Why can't this subject be addressed in another article that deals with people who coined the phrase. Why does the phrase itself need an article.annoynmous 05:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again there are really aren't any sources in this article. Yes there are a lot of books referenced, but that assumes the editor actually looked at those sources to confirm what they said.It seems to me that the editor basically copied Muir's argument and then listed all the same sources as in her article. Basically there really is only one source for this article.If plagarism counts as legimate sourcing well then that's very unfortunate.annoynmous 05:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yeah, I'm not seeing a real reason to delete. AfD is not for cleanup. Maxa megalon 2000 05:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Too late for WP:SNOW? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is great, an article is created by a POV pushing sock-vandal with intent of biasing wikipedia. He has know been banned and was probably part of the CAMERA propoganda campaign that was recently exposed. Didn't any of you guys hear about that. I can't even ask other people for help, so I'm forced to be the lone wolf defending my cause. If an article was created on Global Warming and the entire article was revealed to have been written by a PR man for Exxonmobil, your telling me you wouldn't want that article deleted right away? annoynmous 05:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You make some heavy charges. Provide evidence, or it didn't happen. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Nothing wrong here. asenine ^{say what?} 05:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and develop. It has multiple sources, it provides perspective, it has value. If it has flaws, work to fix them. Hertz1888 (talk) 05:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong here, are you kidding me. An article entirely plagarized from an article that says it was critics of zionism who popularized the phrase "A Land Without a people, For a People Without a Land" instead of the zionists themselves and you say nothing wrong here.

An article that also makes the argument indirectly that there was know such thing as a palestinian identity before the zionists started coming. That has to be insulting to some people on wikipedia. Please, is there anyone out there sympathetic to the palestinian cause who finds this entire article vulgar and obscene.annoynmous 05:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that is quite a tirade. Has it occurred to you that you have some pretty serious POV pushing problem yourself? You might want to look up WP:BATTLE. Nsk92 (talk) 13:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For some insight (humour!) see WP:KETTLE Prashanthns (talk) 13:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make such statements. An AfD discussion is not really a place for varied political affiliations to push POV. Also, article may be insulting to some people is not really a good arguement. I really wish you had listened to all those suggestions on your talk page that many editors and I gave you. Pleae read Deletion policy again, if necessary. Per User:Eleland's suggestion, I recommend you withdraw the AfD. Firstly, you have come here with a poor understanding of what constitutes a deletable article. Secondly, responding to each and every editor's opinion on the page with no substantial or new reasoning is hardly going to 'convert' people towards deletion. And thirdly, like so many other users above, What prevents you from truning the article around? Work out the whole article on your user page if necessary and re-post 'your version' of the article on the talk page. Build consensus, argue and justify your opinions based on wikipedia policy and improve it. Else, face it! This article cannot be deleted just because you don't like it. You are only incurring bad faith by insisting on its deletion. Prashanthns (talk) 06:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Prashanthns (talk) 06:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. annoynmous, let me remind you of the Wiki policies regarding civility and assuming good faith. Hertz1888 (talk) 06:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great! First I can't ask for help now I'm being told what type of statments I can or can't make. Who are you to say that I haven't made my case for deletion. The article basically only has 3 sources that can be linked to. Two of which are Muir's article. All the other sources and most of the content of the article is basically plagarized from her article. You know it's not like I just picked this article because I hated it. I looked at and something seemed very odd, seeing is how it was entirely biased towards one point of view. Then I looked at the history page nd saw that the primary editor of the page was a sock who had recently been banned from wikipedia. The entire article was obviously created with malicious intent. It would seem to me that an article like that would be a prime candidate for deletion. Why should someone be allowed to create an artilce with a POV agenda an then when they get banned have the article stick around because no one wants to delete it. I haven't just repeated the same argument. I've added the fact that the article appears to be heavily plagarized from Muir's article. I've laso said about a billion times, but apparently no one's listening, If you want to redue the article from scratch than fine. However, to say that the article is fine as it is is a lie. It is a biased travesty. I must say I resent being told that if I continue to stick up for my point of view I'll be punished. Let other editors decide that please, don't presume to speak for all of wikipedia.annoynmous 06:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I can see I'm getting nowhere with this. A gentlemen above made the suggestion that the entire article should be reduced to a stub until someone comes along to add the pertent information. How about something like "The Phrase is supposed to mean this, but there are contorversies as too it's origins" or something like that. That's the most I'm willing to accept sense just about everything else in the article comes from a biased perspective. I would like the tag to stay for another 24 hours and if by then no else comes along to support my view then I'll take it down and it can be reduced to a stub. I would also like to say I didn't mean to insult anyone, I just felt the decks were being artificially stacked against me. I also am frustrated as to why people aren't more angry about the fact that a sock created an article purely for propoganda purposes. Very well 24 Hours that's 07:03 on May 15.annoynmous 07:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and edit properly for a NPOV. An extremely famous slogan. The editing of course is untrustworthy, but that can be fixed--more easily now that everyone is fully aware of the sockpuppetry and POV editing involved here. DGG (talk) 07:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to point out that many of the names used to support the authors thesis were also created after this article by the same vandal editor. That includes Adam Garfinkel, Alexander Keith, Jacob Lessner, Diana Muir and S.llan Troen. All there pages were created by the same sock editor, obviously to make there views on this article seem legitimate. The articles on Israel Zangwill, Anthony Cooper and Edward Said were also substantially altered to fit this articles thesis. It just seems to me that people should be angrier about the damage this editor has done to wikipedia. annoynmous 08:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me that I need to change my approach and that anger may gotten the better of me. I would like to say that I am sorry if anybody felt insulted by my tone, but I felt like I was being ganged up on. Okay, let's address the issue of sources. A lot has been made about "How can you want to delete this article, it has 38 sources" and I think that's fair. However, If you look at the article closely I think you'll find that article doesn't have as many sources as you think. First off several of the sources are listed more than once. The links are spread throughout the article to make it appear more sourced than it actually it is. If you look at the names of the sources the same book appears 3 sometimes 5 times. It actuality there are only about 20 sources.

Most of the sources in support of the sock editors agenda are concentrated in 4 places. Diana Muir's article. Jacob Lessner and :S.llan troen's book, Adam Garfinkel's book and Alan dowty. Aside from the fact that none of these people had wikipedia pages before the mysterious editor created them, they come from very biased backgrounds and couldn't really be considered notable or reliable. Adam garfinkle use to edit the conservative American interest. S.llan Troen is head hair of Israel studies at brandei university. Diana Muir, she is an historian of New England so I don't why she is qualified to speak on Israel. Plus as Eleland pointed out on the talk page, she advocates that the black checked keffiyeh is symbol of palstinian determination to destroy the jewish state. These aren't neutral sources people. I wish I could tell you more about them, but there isn't much on there pages. An indication to me that the editor new they weren't highly regarded commentators. So add that to the sock editors crimes, artificially inflating the number of sources and reling on biased and obscure academics.annoynmous 12:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also erased two sources from the article. One was from an extreme right wing site called the American Thinker, the other was a rabidly pro-Israel website called Middle East Peace, neither of which had any references or scholarly basis to back up there claims. These are the sources the sock editor relied on people. Doesn't that tell you something about the content of the article in general.annoynmous 13:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I tried to hold myself before responding. But, I fail to see where you are going with this? I have the following issues, which I will put as succinctly as possible.

Your tone - You should assume good faith of others' actions, as we do to yours! REmember you have twice now edited the page with an ip. When you brought the article to an AfD, it is but rational to expect comments. People will say what they feel and they did. I found your response this response incivil. Persistantly questioning people's judgements is not something I would do. I am not advising you but merely sharing a point. Most people who participate in AfDs do some thorough reading before voting. If you go on and on about it, it borders on trolling.
You continue to remove portions from the article without any discussion on the talk page!! You were reverted once and you have done it again! I shall not re-revert, because, I am not aware of the subject itself and have only stuck to the process. In this matter, I have no POV either way.
Sources in the articleYou keep questioning Diana Muir article creation. EVEN IF it was created by that sock, she is definitely notable. There are several reliable sources and secondary sources for her. There are many who are right and many who are left wing. That in itself does not mean her works are disqualified from the article. If in fact she is saying something that is wrong, find a source which says that. Wikipedia is not for original research and we cant say, this is wrong and biased, so let me remove it.
Please do not indent every point you are making here. It is unnecessarily prolonging the page! Just indent your response and that is enough. No need to add the : to every line.

Prashanthns (talk) 13:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Formatting done to improve readability. No content removed. —Prashanthns (talk) 13:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stated why I removed to articles in the edit summary and above. There's no law says I can't still edit is there. As I said above both the sites are very unscholarly and very biased.

As for my tone, I beleive I apologized above for that and said I'm sorry If I offended anyone. I don't understand your hostile response. Prashanthns, you said before you have no particular bias regarding this subject. I'm sure you don't and I apperciate that, but the point I was trying to make was that no one has really actually looked at the article. I just sometimes get the feeling that people are against me out of a gut instinct without really looking at my argument. I felt that I was probably to blame for that because in my haste I hadn't artuculated my argument well.

The argument I was trying to make was that everybody was saying how can I want to delete this article when there's so many sources and the argument I was trying to make was that actually there isn't. Also what little citations they do have come from obscure academics who I'm sorry aren't that notable.

I'll tell you what, I'll try to watch my tone if will watch yours in regard to how I edit my entrees. I will also try to make my arguments more precise and not let my emotions get the better of me. annoynmous 14:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to reiterate an argument I made above. Let's say an article was written on an aspect of Global Warming and the main thrust of it was that most scientists agree Global warming is hoax. Let's say it had over 50 sources. Then the editor was exposed as a sock who worked for Exxonmobil. Also most of the sources were found to be from scientists paid by oil companies. Your telling me that article wouldn't be immediately deleted and started over form scratch.annoynmous 14:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That is EXACTLY what I am telling you. If the article already quotes some scientists, as long as they are not directly discredited by the scientific community, it is not for me or you to decide to delete and start from scratch! Instead, I would balance the article by providing sources of the other views. Do not be judgemental of sources.

And No. People are not opposing you without reading. I reiterate most people read thoroughly before voting! Do you really think Diana Muir is non-notable?? Can you show this? Would you also nominate that article for deletion then as an article about a non-notable person?? Prashanthns (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not indirectly discredited by the scientific community, may be it's just me, but if your taking money from the oil companies you pretty much discredited. If not discredited than least not reliable when it comes to commenting on global warming.

Also, yes I would delete the Diana Muir article because her page was only created in the first place to make her sound like a legitimate voice. Why do you say she's notable. There aren't many links on her site and it isn't very long or deatiled. Unless you know something about her I don't I'd say her prestige is very limited.annoynmous 15:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is where we completely differ. Diana Muir based on my research (done right now) is definitely notable and I dont think her AfD will go through. Yes, I completely agree that the present status of her article is bad. It is written like a commentary, but that does not make it an AfD candidate. An unsolicited suggestion to you would be to not waste your time on her AfD. In any case, I am done with this exchange of ours. I dont think we are heading anywhere with this and as I said earlier, and another editor commented, you seem to be engaging in the same manner of POV that you accuse this article of!Cheers and no more responses from me on this thread! Prashanthns (talk) 15:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All I did was remove two links that I felt came from bias sources. There's nothing that says I can't edit the article while the tags up. In fact the tag itself says so.

It's interesting you admit that her article as constructed is bad. Your admitting that the article as is doesn't really show her to be that notable and that is has a very biased outlook.

Even if she was notable I don't understand why a New England Historian is suddenly an expert on Israel/Palestine.

I'll say again I never meant to insult anyone, but I resent this constant belligerent tone I get every time I try to argue my point. Am I just supposed to just lay down and say "Okay you guys are right".

I'll just say, If this article isn't a standard candidate for deletion than I'd hate see a one that is because it must be truly awful.annoynmous 15:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about one over a non-notable topic? That's the standard candidate for deletion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems hopelessly POV, and created by a banned user to push a certain point of view, based on sources of questionable reliability. Do we really need an article on every phrase used in political debate? Edison (talk) 15:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An AfD is not the right place for resolving content disputes. The subject is notable, of apparent historical and event contemporary political signicance. There are lots of reliable sources that cover it (just do a GoogleBooks search) and it deserves an article. It is not the fault of the subject of the article that it the article was created by some relentless POV pusher. Nsk92 (talk) 16:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- A phrase 150 years old, that several editors and historians have thought notable? Yes, we do need an article.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; if you want to create an article without taint of sources and sock-puppetry, go ahead and do so in userspace, and maybe it can be moved over this article if other editors agree. Otherwise, it's a passable article over a notable subject.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an article with just a taint of sockpuppetery. The whole article was created from the ground up by a sock. All the sources and relevant content were added by the sock. Not to mention that it is essentially an advertisement for Diana Muir's article which the editor shamlessly plagarized.

Alson, I think your placing to much importance on the phrase Prosifilaes. Yes it's an old phrase, but it's more famous for the people who have used than the phrase itself. It seems to me that relevant place is in articles of people who used the phrase. It also seems lke an incredibly long phrase to have it's own article.

Thank you edison by the way for a voice of support.annoynmous 16:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If multiple people have used a slogan, especially over 150 years, then it's notable. If you feel the article is horribly tainted by the sockpuppet, go ahead and write a better one. Sock-puppets at this stage are not a reason to delete.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not, If an article is created from the beginning with malicious intent then why shouldn't it be erased and started from scratch. I wouldn't know were to start in improving the page as it is. I'd have to erase damn near everything except the title. That's how slanted it is. This isn't a case of a little bias over here and over there, No from top to bottom, A to Z the article is rotten to the core.

I'll ask again, If an article dealing primarily with an aspect of Global Warming was found to have been primarily edited by a sock who turned out to be an Exxonmobil PR man wouldn't that article be deleted?.annoynmous 16:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, because the guiding principles on Wiki, according to my understanding of them, are verifiability and reliable sourcing. It doesn't matter who the editor is. Hertz1888 (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)You are missing the point. The subject of the article is notable, irrespective of who created it. If your hypothetical scenario were true, and if the subject itself was notable, it will not be deleted. It will have to be re-written. Similarly, here too, the subject of the article is notable, but perhaps (as you say) the content may not be. That does not mean that it has to be deleted. Re-write it if you can. If not, tag it as ((POV)) and somebody else will get down to doing it. Prashanthns (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well Hello Prashanthns, nice to see you back. So basically anyone can create any biased piece of garbage they want on wikipedia and not have it removed. Even if the whole reason for the articles existence is because the sock created it. It seems to me that should matter somewhat.

Also, as I've said before the article isn't properly sourced. If you guys would look a little closer at the article there really are only two sources. One is Diane Muir. Just about all the other links are plagarized from her article right down to the page numbers. The other source is the Jacob Lessner and S.llan troen book.

I would also like to say that I know of an article on two former CIA agents turned political commentators who had there page deleted because they believed in 9-11 conspiracies. If an article can get deleted for that than why can't one that was started by a sock.annoynmous 17:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go to Global warming and change it to say "Global warming is a lie." (Warning: don't really do this.) Watch it get changed to a better version of the article. That's how we deal with biased pieces of garbage, not deleting Global warming.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that the Global Warming article wasn't created in the first place specifically to serve a socks POV agenda.annoynmous 17:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then, please dont use it to prove a point. I have started some minor tone-changing of the article to remove POV. I will stick to tone and people feel free to correct me if I make any factual error, as I don't know the subject and will only deal with style. Prashanthns (talk) 17:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another difference is that the Global Warming article doesn't have a "t" in the title. That's about as relevant. If your difference is even a difference; have you really checked who created the Global warming article and what their motives were?--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's why they call it a hypothetical. I said if it had been created from the beginning by a Sock than it would have been deleted.

I'll tell you what I'm gonna make a deal with you guys. I made a proposal above that know one listened too for a 24 hour timeline if no one agrees with me that it should be deleted. The good Mister Edison broke that timeline, but now I'm gonna set another one.

If 24 hours from now no one else comes along and agrees with my position that the article should be deleted than I'll agree to have the tag removed. That's 17:40 May 15. I'm gonna go away for a while because this is starting to tire me out.

Also, please don't anyone do anything foolish like try erase someone's delete vote from the history log becasue I will check them thoroughly.annoynmous 17:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh...so much for assuming good faith, no? Kukini ^{háblame aquí} 17:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed!Hmpf...Annoynmous, you speak like we are all enjoying this! I am tired of responding, but anyways, note that this is NOT A VOTE!! We are trying to generate consensus. I really wish you read that deletion policy that I referred you to SO MANY TIMES! Prashanthns (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's a talk page which would serve as a better forum for these long threads. Also, I remind everyone to keep a cool head. nneonneo ^talk 17:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) Already cooling down!Should this be moved then, or suggestions for (hopefully not!) future long talks? Prashanthns (talk) 17:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's mainly a suggestion for future threads and future AfDs, since moving the threads in this debate would probably disrupt continuity. Comments here should be kept short, while more detailed and in-depth discussion can be taken to the talk page. Thanks for your input! nneonneo ^talk 19:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe the article presents the major points of view fairly, and any NPOV issue on that page is probably minor. This wasn't worth dragging to AfD, in my opinion. nneonneo ^talk 17:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As it is clearly a notable subject, POV issues require cleanup not deletion. ~ mazca ^talk 20:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know there's know way for me to win is there. My god some of you guys are incredibly thin skinned. I made a suggestion for a timeline so we could end this and like usual I get accused of rudeness. I was talking about some random person who might fool with the history page, not any particular person. Why does every sarcastic comment I make get interpreted as a major insult.

NNeoneos comment shows me that it isn't that I haven't read the deletion policy, It's that you guys continue to ignore my argument. To say that this article is fairly NPOV is outrageous and only someone who either has an agenda or hasn't really looked at the article would say something like that. Would you guys' please just look at the article instead of bashing me for not reading the deletion policy or sounding insulting. Look at the history page and see how the sock editor was the primary editor. Look at the sources and see how many times they there cited. Read Muir's article and see how many of the sources were plagarized from her article. Do some actual research instead of just harping on me for not giving up and going away.

It seems like many of you guys came into this with your minds all ready made up and never bothered to listen to my argument. Instead of looking to see If I was right or wrong you just decided to overrule me. If that sounds insulting than so be it, but I personally feel insulted by the bullying tone I've some time been subject to. All I've ever done is argue my point and I get excused of being uncivil. Well if my tone is uncivil it's because I get angry at comments like nneonneos above. Any person who actually looked at this article objectively or who knew something about the subject matter would never say this article is fair and accurate.

I don't understand why keeping this article is so important to some of you. Some of you have admitted that you don't know much about the subject so why the instant reflex to keep it.

As I said before I'll keep to the timeline I set above and by the looks of things the tag is coming down in a few hours so don't worry your suffering is coming to an end soon.annoynmous 09:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Annoynmous, please use the talk page. Writing such long responses here clutters the page and makes it difficult to see the responses of individual editors. This suggestion extends to other talk pages: discussing and elaborating on perceived issues at the article's talk page often leads to a more balanced and fair article. nneonneo ^talk 15:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter, I just wanted to keep it for the record. I'm about to remove the tag in an hour anyway. I would just like to say nneoneo I wasn't suggesting that above that you were biased above, I just felt you hadn't looked at the article closely. I didn't mean to insult you and I apologize if it read that way.annoynmous 15:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Left a message on the talk page for you nneonneo. Thank you for your contributions and again I'm sorry if my tone sounded insulting toward you above.annoynmous 16:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm gonna remove the tag now..annoynmous 17:00, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Louder Than Words (EP)[edit]

Recreated after deleted by WP:PROD. Fails WP:MUSIC w/ no WP:V or WP:RS. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 01:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Limited release EP, not notable per WP:MUSIC criteria for albums. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources to indicate notability of the album per WP:MUSIC. The album is already mentioned in Kate Voegele which is sufficient in this case. Nsk92 (talk) 02:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not satisfy WP:MUSIC. asenine ^{say what?} 05:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:18, 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. There was a clear consensus that this hotel lacked sufficient notability for a standalone page. However, I see no reason not to merge the content so I will merge, as an editorial action, and make a protected redirect for GFDL reasons. TerriersFan (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Union Hotel, Wheeling, IL[edit]

Non-notable hotel that was torn down 12 years ago Ecoleetage (talk) 01:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability not asserted or established; top few hits lead here but otherwise very spotty. Frank | talk 02:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly Merge to Wheeling, Illinois. There is a single source, a local city newsletter, that talks briefly about the hotel as having historical significance. No other sources are mentioned and I could not find any after a bit of looking. Not enough here to pass WP:N. Incidentally, may also be a minor copyvio case since the text of the WP article is taken verbatim from the above mentioned newsletter[55]But since the text is so short, that is probably not a big deal. The main problem is the apparent lack of notability. One other possibility would be to merge the article to Wheeling, Illinois since there is actually some sourced info here. Nsk92 (talk) 02:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication (and none found during search) that this structure ever had anything but WP:LOCAL significance, such as landmark status or inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. --Dhartung | Talk 04:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:N. asenine ^{say what?} 05:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Preserve the information and improve Wheeling, Illinois at the same time. --AnnaFrance (talk) 19:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:18, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yvette Tyler[edit]

Non-notable entertainer with no obvious star appeal Ecoleetage (talk) 01:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as she appears to fail WP:MUSIC. She was a fixture at the "Gray Rooster" in LA, but I'm not sure that really even asserts notability. (A quick google didn't indicate the place is anything special). Bfigura ^(talk) 02:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. asenine ^{say what?} 05:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I typed her name into google books and got no hits. Any notable New Orleaans musician of that era would be mentioned in at least one book.Elan26 (talk) 21:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]

Delete The complete lack of reference on the web to any of the people, the place, or the song in the article strongly suggests it's a hoax. This article was the creator's only contribution to Wikipedia. Note also the article's Talk Page. Voceditenore (talk) 12:09, 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 Keep. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 12:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unity Christian High School (Fulton)[edit]

A non-notable high school Ecoleetage (talk) 01:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 02:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 02:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. High schools are generally notable. I found several mentions of the school, but nothing that would let me expand the article. --Eastmain (talk) 02:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as valid high school stub. Give it time to expand.--Sting au Buzz Me... 04:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, high schools are keepable. See WP:PRECEDENT. This should be fine. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per all sans nom. asenine ^{say what?} 05:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep High schools are inherently notable. --Pwnage8 (talk) 13:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—This is a very small school with 73 students, so the notability is unclear. The page also lacks external sources; the only link was broken when I checked it. Sorry but I can not support this article for a keep in its current form. It needs something else to take it over the top,—RJH (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. And for goodness sake, let's stop AfD'ing high schools. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the consensus is that high schools are notable. TerriersFan (talk) 15:43, 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 due to the lack of reliable sources covering the holiday. Davewild (talk) 21:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unity Day (Solidarity)[edit]

The non-notable "holiday" appears to be a little too unofficial Ecoleetage (talk) 01:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Quite possibly a hoax. No sources cited and I could not find anything at all after a bit of Google searching. Nsk92 (talk) 02:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Nsk92. Tagged as possible hoax. asenine ^{say what?} 05:45, 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, article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 21:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Richards[edit]

No sign of notability, fails WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 00:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —Fabrictramp (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There are lots of Ryan Richards out there, but I can't find any reliable non-IMDb-based sources (beyond passing mentions) for this one. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe if Laundry Warrior does well he will become notable, but not yet. --Helenalex (talk) 23:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Partly notable for local TV appearances, but until Laundry Warrior is released (sometime in '08, according to IMDb) - or until he personally receives coverage in secondary sources - he's got no real claim to fame. —97198 talk 08:40, 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 Keep (non-admin closure), with notability confirmed. Rock on! Ecoleetage (talk) 00:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Craig's Brother[edit]

Band with no assertion of notability, fails WP:MUSIC notability criteria, no reliable sources, not to mention the unencyclopedic tone and COI editing (e.g. [56]) Stormie (talk) 00:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the band's recordings:

Keep meets WP:MUSIC#C5, but the albums themselves fail WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - On a major label and has shared the stage with highly notable bands such as Yellowcard. asenine ^{say what?} 05:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep main article because it meets album criteria on WP:MUSIC. No comment on album articles. Royal broil 12:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Steady Keep Ryan Key, of Yellowcard, was once in the band, which makes it notable enough. [The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 05:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP ALL The band, as demonstrated above, meets the notability requirements. As for the albums, I'd have to say keep as well. WP:MUSIC#Albums states that "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." So that on its own should merit a keep. If you want to be anal about sources, they may seem non-notable, but Homecoming has a review in a notable publication. So there just may be sources floating around there for someone to add when they have the time. The sourcing problem is best dealt with the "unreferenced" tag, not an AfD. WP:MUSIC#Albums also states that "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." The albums could conceivably be merged into a "Discography" section, but that would take up too much space, and would make creating the articles again when the sources are added a time-consuming job that would best be spent elsewhere. And if the album articles are deleted, there would be no chance to integrate all the content into the article per above anyway. Finally, since the nom somehow missed this article, it would look very silly if that was the only one to stick around, wouldn't it? KEEP ALL for all of these reasons. --Pwnage8 (talk) 01:00, 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 G10 as attack page by Golbez. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Davis (Thug)[edit]

Not notable. Megapen (talk) 00:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged for speedy as an attack page LegoTech·(t)·(c) 01:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as attack page. --Eastmain (talk) 01:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as an attack page and a bio that fails to assert notability. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 01:06, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blankwaller[edit]

Non-notable neologism. One Google hit (for me, results may vary). Seems to have been coined by the article creator. nneonneo ^talk 00:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO and WP:NOT#DICT. The term was not coined by the article creator however: article does contain external link to news site where phrase was used. - Icewedge (talk • goat) 03:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- From the article: "...originally coined by Parag Shah...", and the author is "ParagSh". The Guardian article says the same thing. It's also an advertisement for his company "Art-Switch" because that's the only context in which it has been used -- i.e. it's a marketing term coined by this company's founder. nneonneo ^talk 15:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just a protologism that hasn't yet taken any sort of root. --Dhartung | Talk 04:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Blatant protologism. asenine ^{say what?} 05:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral leaning towards a very weak delete - per WP:NEO and WP:NOTDICDEF like stated above, however, the creator does provide links to show the phrase in use. If it is kept, it needs expanding. I'm going to see if I can enhance it myself. If I can't find anything to help the article then I'll change my vote accordingly —— Ryan • t | c 10:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not only a neologism, but a slyly disguised advertisement for the original author's company? Look at his name, the content of the page and the three refs and you be the judge. I see that nneonneo and I have arrived at the same conclusion. Merenta (talk) 01:29, 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 Speedy keep. This article was originally nominated by a sock puppet of an indefinitely banned user. Non-admin close. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Betsy Devine[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable author or journalist
This is a vanity piece by a current wikipedian. It does not meet WP:BIO

The person is not regarded as an important figure and is not is widely cited by their peers or successors.
The person is not known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
The person has not created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
The person's work has not become a significant monument, a substantial part of a significant exhibition, won significant critical attention, and is not represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries. Sur de Filadelfia (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sur de Filadelfia (talk) 00:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Detele per User:Sur de Filadelfia, WP:N, WP:RS (aka not citations from a blog!) and WP:BIO. --Do you know me?...then SHUT UP!!! _{Sarcasm is beauty} 01:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as this is a bad faith nomination. User:Sur de Filadelfia encountered User:Betsythedevine on the epicaricacy AFD page, where s/he commented, "What the hell is wrong with Betsythedevine?...Somebody should slap Betsy's hands for abusing process. " Soon after, s/he nominated this page for deletion. Per the reasoning given in the last AFD (where references to several independent reviews of her books were given), I don't see there's a need to renominate this. --C S (talk) 01:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the rationale from AfD #1 seems to still hold. (Which basically is that she does, in fact, pass WP:BIO). Bfigura ^(talk) 02:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Could use some better references to meet 2008 standards, but seems to pass WP:BIO. Some appropriate googling shows that she is in fact "widely cited", at least enough for inclusion, and I found two reviews for one of her co-authored books to meet WP:BK. The nom does smell of bad faith. --Dhartung | Talk 05:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, I call bad faith here. See User:C S' commentary above. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless cleaned up - Needs help, but the content itself is ok. asenine ^{say what?} 05:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant keep. AfD is not cleanup. DGG (talk) 07:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As others have pointed out, this AfD comes hot on the heels of attacks on my edits elsewhere in Wikipedia. If I add references to this article I can be accused of even more vanity, but the Concord (NH) Monitor referred to me as "liberal blogger Betsy Devine" and a "sort of wiki-expert who has spoken at conferences and the like." A pdf transcript from Public Radio's Morning Stories says "one of our earliest broadcasts came from a woman named Betsy Devine, a small town resident from Manchester, New Hampshire and Princeton, New Jersey who discovered the power of blogging." Before I had a blog, the New York Times called me "a writer and an engineer." I gave talks at Wikimania 2006 (analysis of two different kinds of attacks on Wikipedia articles) and at Citizen Media 2006 (a description of my efforts to cover a the NH phone-jamming case that big media mostly ignored.) I have co-authored a couple of good books, altho my bio misstates my participation in a third. I was not a co-author of the essay collection Fantastic Realities, although 75 pages from my blog made up its final section. The book describes its own authorship as "Frank Wilczek with a contribution by Betsy Devine." The Times Higher Education reviewer had both good and bad things to say about that contribution! Basically, I am a blogger who has co-authored a couple of books and contributed to a third. I have also been cited for my work pursuing the NH phone-jamming scandal. I will leave it to other editors to decide whether the article about me should be deleted or improved. betsythedevine (talk) 08:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Many of the sources I find list her in the course of talking about her notable physicist husband Frank Wilczek, in which case she could be mentioned in his article. The sources which are her books and her blogs are not that convincing as to WP:BIO. More reviews and other substantial coverage in reliable and independent sources are needed as refs in the article. To avoid conflict of interest, the subject of an article should let others do the editing. She can list the refs on the article talk page. A starting point is a Google News search [57]. The trick is getting past the paywall to see which have more than passing references to her. Edison (talk) 15:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough for notability. DGG (talk) 20:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable. Besides, this nominator is a policy litter-bug. For despite a Jericho distribution of wiki-policy, nevertheless misses his or her intended target. --Firefly322 (talk) 20:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice - I don't mind that a Wikipedia has edited an article about themselves. It is technically frowned upon but in reality it can be a reasonable way to ensure that our biographies are accurate. However, not only has the Wikipedian edited the article, but she seemed to have created it as well. The evidence for this is that the first edit to the article was made by an IP address who also made the first edit to the Wikipedian's user page. The second edit to the article was made by the Wikipedian under their user account. If she is notable enough someone else will create an article on her. Therefore, I believe the article should be deleted, with no prejudice against recreation by another user. Force10 (talk) 16:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per C S and Dhartung Dori (Talk • contribs) 21:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see any claims to notability in the article that would satisfy our requirements. The books listed are not notable (regardless of how good they may be), giving a talk at Wikimania is not inherently notable, nor does the blog seem particularly notable (although after having read some of it, I think it is entertaining!). Yes, there is some coverage of the subject; that's to be expected of an individual that is married to a Nobel Prize winner and who has a web presence. Since notability isn't inherited, I just don't see that this article satisfies notability requirements. That being said, I believe that some of this may be merged with Frank Wilczek. BWH76 (talk) 12:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination made by proven sockpuppet of indefinetly banned user I think this closes the case. Aren't contributions by such users invalid? Let a legitimate user nominate this article if they wish. (And never, never feed the trolls) ike9898 (talk) 14:02, 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 withdrawn by nominator. PhilKnight (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Working in Partnership Programme (WiPP)[edit]

Appears to be promotional. PhilKnight (talk) 16:21, 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.