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

The result was delete and then redirect to soulmate.  Sandstein  20:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

No demonstration of notability at all: neither of the two external links provided makes any mention at all of the term "cosmic twin". The Anome (talk) 23:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - appears to be original research. Aleta ^Sing 03:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Aleta ^Sing 03:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to soulmate. The term is in use, or has been (I suspect it's in decline), but there aren't enough substantial sources about it for more than a mention in that article. --Dhartung | Talk 06:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no sources. Redirect if appropriate. WillOakland (talk) 07:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looks like OR. -- Alexf⁴² 03:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect per Dhartung above. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:26, 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 redirected to parent article. ➨ REDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 11:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unimportant element of a video game series. No merge is required. --- RockMFR 23:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable video game species; only one sentence is actually about the subject of the article, the rest is about some boss character that happens to be a Breegull. - Icewedge (talk) 00:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 02:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Icewedge. No encyclopedic value here whatsoever. JuJube (talk) 02:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete page blanked by author. JuJube (talk) 00:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia isn't a game guide. Stifle (talk) 08:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This can never be more than a dict-def, except for original research. List of characters in the Banjo-Kazooie series already covers the characters. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable. I CSD-ed quite a few similar entries last night. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many people search for this concept. Also I think that many people should know that it doesn't really exist. Also It can be a lot more better. I think a different tag should be put on suggesting to make the page longer. Like the tag that says the article is extremely short. It can be a lot better and I know it. I just need the help of other contributers. I know it wasn't you that put it up for the articles of deletion but I think doing this is a mistake. Normally I would not act this way. Normally I am fine when my page is deleted. I think that this article is a lot better than most other articles that I create. Also I think that many people want to know farther what a "breegull" is. I really think it should be taken off of the articles of deletion. Almost everyone that I know wanted to know more about breeguls. Me too!! I wanted to see what a real breegull looked like. Then after farther research I realized that it was only a creature in the Banjo-Kazooie and Viva Pinata universe. So I searched it here on Wikipedia. I figured out know such page existed so I decided to create the page for the better of Wikipedia. I highly suggest the tag be taken off by and admin. Thank You. (author)--Anfish (talk) 16:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: It seems that the author wishes to delete the article, plus what JuJube, Stifle, Sgeureka and J.dalanoy said. תחי מדינת ישראל (talk) 04:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No I did not!!!!! Nevermind Just delete it. I don't like the page anyway. Go ahead tell an admin to delete it.>:(--Anfish (talk) 13:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of characters in the Banjo-Kazooie series#Kazooie. Seeing as Kazooie is often referred to as "Breegull" and all, this might be a better idea. .:Alex:. 16:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its me the author of the article. I have made a redirect on Breegulls. So now that the information is gone and now that it is a redirect the discussion over its deletion is over. Thank you all.--Anfish (talk) 21:03, 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 - a unanimous view. In addition there is an absence both of secondary sources and also of real world context. TerriersFan (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spells of Wizards of Waverly Place (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No importance whatsoever. --- RockMFR 23:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unnotable list of plot devices written in a tone inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Nate • (chatter) 01:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to lack of sources, for a start. Stifle (talk) 08:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Plot summarization of non-notable fictional elements which have not received substantial coverage from reliable independent sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:20, 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 speedily deleted per G7. Non-admin closure Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 05:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banjo-Kazooie: Sky's the Limit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-existent game. No sources. --- RockMFR 23:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete Rumored game, no reliable sources to prove it's even in production. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete page blanked. JuJube (talk) 02:04, 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 Speedy keep Given the presence of multiple sources, I withdraw this nomination. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The only sources I've found on this chain are a.) about its acquisition by Spartan Stores, or b.) about the closure of a store in Jackson. Neither of those seems to meet substantial third-party coverage, nor does anything else that I can find about this chain. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless reliable sources are cited to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 08:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC) Keep in the light of the sources provided below. BTW, companies use WP:CORP rather than WP:ORG. Stifle (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - here is all the secondary source coverage I could find using Google. I think this 20-location, $200M/annum company meets WP:ORG based on this coverage:

Battle Creek Enquirer. Story about Feldpausch brothers opening store, picture, etc.

Mlive.com. Here is the business story about the upcoming Spartan Stores buyout.

Allbusiness.com. Felpausch is focus of coverage regarding Tomax usage.

Lansing State Journal. Story regarding Felpausch conversion to a D&W.

Aglio.com. Lazard story about Spartan merger.

WLNS.com. Local coverage about store closure.

Reuters.com. Story about upcoming buyout.

There were a lot of other business websites carrying the buyout story, but many are redundant and probably not notable enough to list here. Tan | 39 17:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Good finds. That may be enough for a withdraw. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Tanthalas39 for digging these up. I knew Felpausch had a long history in south-central Michigan, but didn't want to weigh in here until I had a chance to see if there were any verifiable sources available. older ≠ wiser 17:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 21:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This was tagged, validly, as an A7 speedy. However, on thinking about the fact that being formed by 9 major airlines and more, I thought we should have some checking done that this was not a minor, but nevertheless notable organisation while it existed. So here's an AfD. Splash - tk 23:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Has some article hits (e.g. [1]), but not many. Looks NN. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 23:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, minor folded organization, nothing more to see. Stifle (talk) 08:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets WP:CORP. I have taken the liberty of adding some references that should establish WP:N. No problem finding independent sources on the company, even if it five years since it went down the drain. Also in the light of the large companies involved in the establishment - this is no small enterprise, even if it seemed to fail. Arsenikk 22:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Although no longer a viable company, it was historically notable by WP:CORP, it looks like to me. The added references make that clearer. Plvekamp (talk) 22:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The references added by Arsenikk are sufficient to show the article meets the notability guidelines.--Kubigula (talk) 14:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the sources found and added by Arsenikk. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:49, 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.  Sandstein  20:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This appears to be nutso-tech. Rob Banzai (talk) 22:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:CB. Stifle (talk) 22:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Oh God, I can feel the will to live draining away as I contemplate this crap. OK. OK. I know that is not a valid reason to delete it. How about it a complete lack of any explanation of what it actually is, how it is meant to work or any reliable source references to enable us to verify any of this stuff. I mean, I could make up some vague, meaningless crap about stuff, decline to identify myself saying that the men in white coats are after me and then post links to crazy sites, but I wouldn't expect an entry in a serious encyclopaedia or to win the Nobel prize for physics for it. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As drivel. No proper references except to publicly-editable wikis with "hoax" articles. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 23:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Googling the book refs shows that they appear to be existing books (though possibly self published). G-hits turn up quite a bit, too. It looks to be a hoax device, but it might actually be attracting enough attention to pass WP:N. Simply put, the wide array of hits that google turns up (not the number, but the types of sites) makes it look like there is serious discussion about this thing. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 23:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are plenty of high profile energy hoaxes out there. My concern is when the article presents it as uncontested fact when there appears to be no third party support. Rob Banzai (talk) 23:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense; if it did turn out to be notable, it would definitely need NPOVed. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless there is some evidence that at least those people who care about such things know about this. Books of this sort are presumed to be self-advertisements. Inventors such as out 'Australian inventor “Joe” who wishes to remain anonymous due to apparent harassment from armed men...' " makes a prima fascia case for something made up for the ignorant and credulous. DGG (talk) 00:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't make the grade, as per previous comments. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think nom put it best. JuJube (talk) 02:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Send it back into the aether. Probable hoax with no sources to speak of. Nor is there any assertion of notability; articles with YouTube videos as sources make a little red light start blinking in my brain! RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 15:36, May 17, 2008 (UTC)
  • Those blinking red lights in your brain are the Orgone energy! Klausness (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, and Delete, since there's no evidence that this is a notable energy hoax. Klausness (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "The evolution of the Joe cell resides in the present tense." The evolution of this article should reside in the past tense. JohnCD (talk) 21:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unverifiable drivel with no reliable sources. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unsourced, non-notable pseudoscience. Edward321 (talk) 19:32, 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 - a clear consensus. Whether a hoax or a vanity piece by a profoundly nn individual, either way it fails WP:V. TerriersFan (talk) 19:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Very likely a hoax. Only hit on Google for the name is this article. No hits for the award in the final paragraph. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 22:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• delete- appears to be fictional. Rob Banzai (talk) 22:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to lack of references. Likely hoax. Stifle (talk) 22:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I wouldn't normally !vote delete on such a new article, but lack of g-hits and an SPA creator make this look like a blatant hoax. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 23:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 02:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a hoax and/or something made up while bored Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 17:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:HOAX. Ostap 03:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete may or may not be a real person but, either way definitely non-notable and non-verifiable Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:37, 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. 22:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been watching this, and I think it's a . I can't find any evidence that this person exists, and I also can't find any evidence that the "sources" (Swiss High Life Magazine, Emirates Business Weekly) exist either. FCSundae ∨^☃ (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:HOAX. Stifle (talk) 22:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Same as the one above; I don't like seeing brand new articles deleted, but no g-hits + created by an SPA . JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 23:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 02:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - even if he exists, notability is not established. JohnCD (talk) 20:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - , impossible to verify Skolan124 (talk) 14:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:04, 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 delete. - Philippe 20:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

No evidence of notability per WP:PORNBIO. Tabercil (talk) 22:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think this is old blatant spam actually. Google the creator's username, and find a blog where the only post is a website ad. Pull up the old revisions and see a removed link to a porn site (I'd recommend you take my word on that one). JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 23:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete, seems to be spam. No news or journal coverage of the subject. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of notability from reliable sources. Vinh1313 (talk) 18:23, 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 - a clear consensus. Probable hoax but in any case profoundly nn. TerriersFan (talk) 19:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My life as a Chickenface: A SGR Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable album and likely a hoax. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 22:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• delete - appears to be fictional. Rob Banzai (talk) 22:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to lack of references. Likely hoax. Stifle (talk) 22:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Appears to be a hoax. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 23:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete idiocy. JuJube (talk) 02:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unsourced hoax, pure cretinism. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 15:50, May 17, 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete should have been speedy. Ostap 02:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable and non-verifiable Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:38, 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 Speedy Delete A7. Malinaccier (talk) 22:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cute as this may be, it isn't notable. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as non-notable website. So tagged. Stifle (talk) 22:20, 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. The page has been radically improved since its nomination. The addition of multiple sources, and evidence that the subject was inducted into the NAIA Track Coaches Hall of Fame, has produced a firm consensus amongst editors that the article should be kept. (Non-admin close.) Smile a While (talk) 02:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I speedy-deleted this page under CSD:A7 as there was no overt assertion of notability. After a discussion and a DRV supported by four editors (all from WikiProject College Football) I undeleted the page and am now listing it here.

I feel this article should be deleted for the following reasons:

• The subject does not meet any part of WP:BIO
• The team which he managed does not even have its own article
• The article contains no citations from reliable sources, which are required under the verifiability policy
  • Note that cfbdatawarehouse.com cannot be considered a reliable source - it is merely a college football enthusiast site. I would expect to see news coverage or similar, secondary sources.
  • Note that pvamu.edu cannot be considered a reliable source as it is a primary source. See WP:SPS.

I have nominated most of the articles together but am separating this article as it claims that the coach is one of the four most successful that this team has had, therefore there is an extra chance that he is notable. In the interest of full disclosure I would ask members of WP:CFB to declare their membership when giving their opinion in this AFD. Stifle (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per my comments in the main nom. VegaDark (talk) 22:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Deletion review is here: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008 May 16#Head coach articles (closed) 23:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Browsing through Google, it seems that very few sources exist. I could find only one possibly appropriate source, which falls short of the requirements of WP:N. Jakew (talk) 00:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment NCAA? When Hoover Wright was the coach at Prairie View, they were in the NAIA. The NCAA would not have any records or statistics. But I enhanced the article a lot, would the New York Times and ESPN do?--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The NCAA may not have records or statistics about games, but this article isn't just about Prairie View. It's about a person. It's a biography. There are two absolutely basic facts that ought to be in any biography (well, one if the subject is alive): when the subject was born, and when they died. The NCAA page provides the answer to one of these questions. The question is: can the other question be answered? Jakew (talk) 10:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Confused So the New York Times and ESPN are NOT good enough sources for you?--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I apologise for any confusion. NYT and ESPN are perfectly acceptable sources, but those sources contain only a passing mention of the subject of the article. Per WP:N#General notability guideline, I'm looking for sources with "significant coverage", and I don't see that. On the other hand, per WP:BIO#Basic criteria, a larger number of sources with less in-depth material may be acceptable. In my humble opinion, a good test of the overall availability of information is whether basic biographical data can be sourced. Jakew (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • On the "known birth date" issue: Lots of people have articles and no known or confirmed birth date. Many historical figures, sure, but Satchel Paige comes to mind in the sports world--an African American born around 1906 or 1907. Hoover Wright was an African American born sometime around 1929, and likely in the southern US. It's not unreasonable to assume that no public records are available on the internet for his birth date. Sure, the article would be enhanced if we have that--and I'll look for it--but not having a birth date shouldn't be grounds for deletion of a biographical article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • You're right: there are cases where such information isn't known, although the subject may be notable. Nevertheless, basic biographical data is often available, in the loose sense of the term. A good example is the article you mention, which has some in-depth information about the ambiguity of the birth date. In light of the recent changes to the article, I'm reconsidering my opinion of it. Jakew (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if its a major college team its coach is notable. DGG (talk) 00:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — Re:PaulMcDonald in Prarie View A&M Coaches. Precedent has been set with other articles. JKBrooks85 (talk) 01:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Found many more sources and have enhanced article with new details and additional information.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Most of the sources given only contain trivial mention. The only full-feature one that I can see is the enthusiast website, which generally aren't RS, since they're primary. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per notability established in obituary. Member of NAIA Hall of Fame. --Smashville^BONK! 21:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per User:Smashville membership in NAIA Hall of Fame would make him notable. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It's been over 5 days. I propose that the article be kept with a consensus of "keep" -- any objections or discussion?--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:07, 21 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 - withdrawn. Stifle (talk) 23:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I speedy-deleted this page under CSD:A7 as there was no overt assertion of notability. After a discussion and a DRV supported by four editors (all from WikiProject College Football) I undeleted the page and am now listing it here.

I feel this article should be deleted for the following reasons:

• The subject does not meet any part of WP:BIO
• The team which he managed does not even have its own article
• The article contains no citations from reliable sources, which are required under the verifiability policy
  • Note that cfbdatawarehouse.com cannot be considered a reliable source - it is merely a college football enthusiast site. I would expect to see news coverage or similar, secondary sources.
  • Note that pvamu.edu cannot be considered a reliable source as it is a primary source. See WP:SPS.

I have nominated most of the articles together but am separating this article as it claims that the coach is one of the four most successful that this team has had, therefore there is an extra chance that he is notable. In the interest of full disclosure I would ask members of WP:CFB to declare their membership when giving their opinion in this AFD. Stifle (talk) 22:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per my comments in the main nom. VegaDark (talk) 22:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• It has now been pointed out that this man was in the College Football Hall of Fame, therefore he is clearly notable and this AFD need not continue. Stifle (talk) 23:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per the Divine Right of Kings and the consensus of the Wikipedian minions to maintain the status quo. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sam B. Taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I speedy-deleted this page under CSD:A7 as there was no overt assertion of notability. After a discussion and a DRV supported by four editors (all from WikiProject College Football) I undeleted the page and am now listing it here.

I feel this article should be deleted for the following reasons:

• The subject does not meet any part of WP:BIO
• The team which he managed does not even have its own article
• The article contains no citations from reliable sources, which are required under the verifiability policy
  • Note that cfbdatawarehouse.com cannot be considered a reliable source - it is merely a college football enthusiast site. I would expect to see news coverage or similar, secondary sources.
  • Note that pvamu.edu cannot be considered a reliable source as it is a primary source. See WP:SPS.

I have nominated most of the articles together but am separating this article as it claims that the coach is one of the four most successful that this team has had, therefore there is an extra chance that he is notable. In the interest of full disclosure I would ask members of WP:CFB to declare their membership when giving their opinion in this AFD. Stifle (talk) 22:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per my comments in the main nom. VegaDark (talk) 22:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — Re:PaulMcDonald in Prarie View A&M Coaches. Precedent has been set with other articles. JKBrooks85 (talk) 01:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have improved the article with additional information and sources.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. First source is a trivial mention, second source contains a few trivial mentions (if there were more of these, it would probably be different, though still borderline), and the rest are just tables of data. Nothing to suggest he passes BIO or even general notability. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The man last coached 46 years ago. I would wager a guess that there are a bunch of offline sources. --Smashville^BONK! 20:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes WP:ATHLETE pretty straightforwardly. "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)." --Smashville^BONK! 21:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It's been over 5 days. I propose that the article be kept with a consensus of "keep" -- any objections or discussion?--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:ATHLETE, as expressed by Smashville. Although online sources are fairly limited in their coverage of Taylor, the now-sourced information in the article is suggestive of notability and of adequate coverage in offline sources. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:31, 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 keep. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Serious questions over notability; lack of reliable or secondary sources mentioning this person. SynergyBlades (talk) 22:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Verifiability is an issue for this article which does not cite any reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm becoming a little swayed towards keep....two of the external links are primary sources, so I've discounted them, but the Global Gourmet article offers significant coverage, as does a WineX Magazine article (newly found on Google,now added to the article). Obviously a far cry from academic papers, but it indicates to me that Pott is notable in the wine world at least. He also got coverage in both USA Today [2] and news.com.au [3] for spraying his grapes with sunscreen (again not significant coverage, but may add to the debate!) I'll reserve judgement as to whether this is enough to keep the article, but would like to hear other editors thoughts. Paulbrock (talk) 22:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As well as the sources mentioned by by Paulbrock the coverage at Google News indicates notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:57, 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 Snow/speedy deleted as hoax/nonsense. DGG (talk) 03:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Likely spoof article. The provided refs do not mention this person. I can't find any other evidence of his supposed achievements. And this page is an interesting piece of evidence.  —SMALLJIM  21:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless cleaned up with proper evidence of notability. Stifle (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with the nom that this looks like vanity due to the EL. Creator is an SPA. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 23:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Definitely a hoax. No references anywhere. In addition to the link provided by the nom[4], there is also this link[5] to the list of Clemson University Improvisational Comedy club, where he appears under "2005-2006 Season". Also the history log of the article, especially various anon IP edits to the "Personal Life" section, is quite telling. An undergraduate student trying to do some improvisational comedy on Wikipedia. Apparently succeeded for over a year since the article was created in March 2007. Nsk92 (talk) 10:31, 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 Speedy delete (funny though it was). Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Van Veldhoven Syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a WP:HOAX. I can find no verification after searching PubMed and ScienceDirect for citations Nk.sheridan   Talk 21:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unverifiable. Nothing on PubMed, ScienceDirect, or Google; I was unable to find records on any of the people named in the article. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Fvasconcellos. Almost certainly a hoax. Nsk92 (talk) 21:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. My searches also turned up nothing (and syndactyly has nothing to do with the "syndrome" described in the article). Hoax, obscure attack page—who knows? It fails WP:V and should therefore go. Deor (talk) 21:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• G3 Hoax. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:51, 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.  Sandstein  06:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Original research, essay, something made up at Stockholm University one day. This is a proposal, not documentation of existing, verifiable, material. Corvus cornix_talk 21:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. An OR project, as explicitly stated in the article itself: "The idea is hence to use this WIkipedia page to define Animation Patterns together with peers." Nsk92 (talk) 21:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOR. Stifle (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Another new one, but the reference doesn't check out. (It's on g-books, but no mention of "animation patterns" or "stockholm"; even searching for "patterns" finds nothing relevant.) Looks like WP:MADEUP. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this isn't even an article. JuJube (talk) 02:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Indeed, this isn't an article; it's a template for some folks at a school to use to help one another. There's not even an assertion of importance here - Did someone speedy this? It certainly deserves it. Merenta (talk) 19:13, 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, at any rate not delete. Mergers can be discussed on the talk page.  Sandstein  06:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mr Rasberry is known for only one thing; as part of his job as an exterminator he came across an infestation of an ant species (or subspecies; unclear), Paratrechina species near pubens, called by the name "Crazy Rasberry ant". He rightly gets a mention in the article on the ant population, but does not deserve an article on his own per Wikipedia:BIO#People notable only for one event and WP:NOT#NEWS. I redirected his article to the ant's, but was reverted. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment He's actually known for two things: discovering the ants, and being hired by NASA to help them with their ant problem. So, "one event" doesn't apply. Zagalejo^^^ 21:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, how about, "known only for the ants"? I don't buy it as making him notable. The sources are about the ants, so NOT#NEWS still applies. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He not only discovered the ant in 2002, but was hired in 2008 by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for his expertise on them. Hence an expert in his chosen field per WP:BIO. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not like they can interview the ants; NOT#NEWS. Coverage of him is not in depth, but relates to his job of spraying pesticides on the ants, so the coverage of him is "not significant" per WP:BIO's nutshell. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm uncertain why you think an article on someone who discovered a new species six years ago would fall under that policy, which covers things like tabloids, sporting events, wedding announcements, etc. NOT#NEWS doesn't mean we can't use recent sources. Like I said, getting hired by NASA to help where other experts failed puts him over the top for me. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Phlegm Rooster.Elan26 (talk)Elan26 —Preceding comment was added at 22:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a news website. Article cites a date that does not yet exist. Stifle (talk) 22:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm Rasberry, we have an ant problem: Exterminator saves NASA from crazy ants does seem to have tomorrow's date. But hardly relevant, you are misunderstanding WP:NOT#NEWS, it doesn't say you can't use recently published sources. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Everybody is clear on the facts; the dude noticed these crazy ants, and he was hired to kill them. People at TAMU think they are invasive. My argument is that's not enough. Some people disagree here, and that's fine. I'm not saying that he can't get mentioned on the ant page. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ahem the facts as I see them: the dude discovers a new species of ants, devotes years of his life to their study, and saves the American space program from destruction. Seems enough to me. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not even certain it is a new species, and "saving the American space program" is an overstatement. Just let other people weigh in. The guy's contibution can be covered in the article on the ants, the articles completely duplicate the same info. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Dismissing him as just some random guy hired to kill some bugs is an understatement. I would again ask that you notify the user who created the article of the AfD, if for no other reason than WP:BITE. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • If it can be merged to another article, then we don't need deletion tools. It seems like you just brought this article here because your redirect wouldn't stick. Zagalejo^^^ 23:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is there some reason this has to be nominated when it's so new? And Zagalejo is right, if someone reverts your change to a redirect, AfDing it isn't the answer, it's a content dispute. Really- threating to delete the article if it's reverted, the first time you redirect it? JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or, I'm prescient. The reason the article is new is that the AP ran a story on the ants which got wide distribution. I found a newly created article on Paratrechina pubens and as fast as I could made redirects. Somebody rightly moved the article to Paratrechina species near pubens, but that left P. pubens as a redirect. I then built an article for them, because they might be a different species. So now we have three articles that say pretty much the same thing. Whenever something splashes on Yahoo's front page or wherever, well intentioned editors create articles for it. Some editors are more human-oriented than others, but I'll say it again; Rasberry's story is 100% tied to these ants, but the story of the ants is not 100% tied to him. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Uncertain lets see what more there is. DGG (talk) 01:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I found the article searching for info on raspberry ants, and found it informative. A good compromise might be to merge it with the Rasberry ant article and then redirect, as he seems to be closely identified with the species, and vice versa. Syd (talk) 01:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Yes, he is notable. So are his ants! Ecoleetage (talk) 01:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — The New York Times refers to him as the discoverer of the ants, and this article seems to lean toward the fact that they are a unique species. [6] JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not create an article on Jason Meyers, the graduate student at TAMU who studies the ants, and is mentioned in those articles too? He's given them their provisional name. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 07:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article as it stands is paltry and deletion worthy. However, if it could be established that Raspberrry discovered tha ants in the sens that he recognized that they were different form other ants and took the initiative to bring the possibility of their being a new species to the scientific community, and if they are recognized as a unique apecies or subspecies , I would agree that he is worthy of an article. Or, for that matter, if he becomes a celebrity for it, if, of rexample, he gets gigs to do TV commercials fo rexterminating companies or be the guest speaker at exterminating conventions on the gorunds that he is a celebrity exterminator-cum-discoverer-of-new-species.Elan26 (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]
• Merge per Syd. Sure the ants are notable, but his notability is completely based on theirs; nothing in his article which doesn't belong in theirs, is there? Cheers, Lindsay 07:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep if Elan26 removes the delete opinion. JeremyMcCracken's diff persuades me that this is a bad-faith nomination. Stifle (talk) 08:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bad Faith"? I have a right to my opinion. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 09:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No kidding]. --UsaSatsui (talk) 10:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The man discovered a new species, for crying out loud. Plus, there's enough sourcing to justify his own article. --UsaSatsui (talk) 10:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are over one million species of insects, so I don't see discovering what might be a species so important. Thank's for the AGF comment, though. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable scientific discovery strongly suggests notability of the lead researcher participating in the discovery. The article as it stands now looks like crap and could use some expansion, but that's an argument for improvement, not deletion. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article was rewritten to emphasize Tom Rasberry as much as possible given the sourcing, and de-emphasize the ants and the work of the academics who also contributed to the ant infestation's discovery, tentative classification and control measures. If one searches around Wikipedia a bit, one will find that there are very few (or none, hard to say) articles on people who discovered just one species (which this population may or may not be). Also, fire ants get into electrical boxes too, just FYI. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I think it's a bit much to call this article "crap". It's sourced, and it's reasonably well-written, at least compared to many other articles. It's as good a stub as any. Zagalejo^^^ 04:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Multiple reliable and independent sources have substantial coverage of him as the discoveror and nemesis of a new and annoying species of insects. Satisfies WP:N and WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 05:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Paratrechina species near pubens but keep the article history. He is known for only one thing and a redirect is better for the encyclopedia than a separate short article. There is no reason to delete the history. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:12, 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 no consensus to delete, default to keep.  Sandstein  06:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I believe this person is non-notable. Problems have been caused with self-promotion on this page, and other referenced pages, with evident advertizing. ((note - comments here removed as per WP:BLP - see discussion below for details --  Chzz  ►  23:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC))) not WP:NOTABLE  Chzz  ►  21:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is plenty of newscoverage of him. GoogleNews returns 418 hits [7] (even if only a half of them are related to him, that'd be enough). the article includes a few solid references and there are lots more available from the above search, such as [8][9][10][11], and so on. Clearly passes WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not a biography. The article was more about Gizmondo than about this guy. After removing the information that didn't belong the bio, almost nothing is left. Unless a real bio can be created for this guy.... --Damiens.rf 21:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement in WP:BIO for there to be specifically a biography or even a biographical article about him, and that is not how it is WP:BIO is typically used, especially for the BLP cases. WP:BIO explicitly says: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability". There is lots of coverage here that is certainly non-trivial. Nsk92 (talk) 21:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think a guy involved with a company with its own page, and with a career this, er, dramatic, can merit a page.Elan26 (talk) 22:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]
• Delete - Google news hits are not relevant to meeting WP:BLP. Most articles that mention him are about Gizmondo the company, and mention Carl Freer in passing because he was CEO. There aren't many, if any, articles focused on him as the main subject. As Carl Freer is only notable for his involvement in Gizmondo, any material not in that article already can be Smerged there. Regarding the dramatic nature of his career, liability issues and reverts from certain interested editors that occur whenever someone tries to add something about those incidents prevent that aspect of his career from being represented here. Fugu Alienking (talk) 22:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Damiens.rf. Stifle (talk) 22:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Please be aware that the number of google hits is falsely inflated by self-published and questionable sources. --  Chzz  ►  22:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. After looking through the page's history and looking up more references I see some of what you guys were talking about. There seems to have been some POV pushing involved with this article and a fair amount of verifiable negative material is not represented in the article. E.g. the story about his about his gun-related arrest reported in the LA Times[12]. Some other news coverage is rather negative, such as this story in New York Times[13]. This sourced and verifiable info is currently not represented in the article which is certainly a problem. But I have to say, in view of all of this coverage, positive and negative, the argument that he is not notable seems rather disingenuous to me. There are POV pushing and balance issues with this article and some BLP problems as well. These may be good enough reasons to delete it, especially since this is a BLP article, I am not sure. But I would say that notability is not the real issue here. Nsk92 (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another negative story in LA Times[14]. Nsk92 (talk) 00:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point of information. Why is this different from other biographical articles. Take a look at Jan T. Gross, a highly regarded historian, but some Polish chauvanists don't like what he writes about Polish persecution of Jews, and keep the page absurd. If you remove pages because they have a tendency to unbalance, many of the most interestign people on Wikipedia would disappear. It's a real problem, but deleting pages is not the fix.Elan26 (talk) 14:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Elan[reply]

• Keep I think the Sunday Times story with the others now found makes enough for both notability and to support the article's negative statements. DGG (talk) 01:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Notability is marginal, at best. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly notable, even notorious, although the level of mystery remaining means it may be difficult to cover his business arrangements with adequate sourcing and NPOV. Nevertheless, he has received sufficient coverage even just as an executive for an article. --Dhartung | Talk 06:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - it's pretty marginal, and I have concerns about lasting notability - in five years' time, will anyone care who this guy is? But he seems to just about pass WP:BIO, for now at least. In future, merging into Gizmondo might be the better solution. Terraxos (talk) 15:38, 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. Maybe recreate once release date and title are confirmed by multiple reliable sources.  Sandstein  20:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Britney Spears Sixth Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article about a future album, fails WP:CRYSTAL. Article was brought to AfD once, decision was delete. TN‑X-Man 20:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per TenPoundHammer's law: if the title of an album isn't known, the page won't survive AfD. Maybe G4 as a repost too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll subscribe to that law. Suggest you list it at WP:LAWS. Oh, and delete. Stifle (talk) 22:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, not many reliable sources for this. --neonwhite user page talk 23:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the law passed by TenPoundHammer and his otter congress. Come to think of it, haven't articles for this untitled upcoming Britney album been AfDed a few times in the past couple months? JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - It has been. I wasn't sure how to list past debates, but if anyone knows how, please feel free. Also, if you could let me know how for future reference? Thanks in advance. TN‑X-Man 01:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:10LB.HAMMERSLAW and the curse of the "Sophomore-Untitled-Upcoming-It'll be here one day, Srsy! Album Article". Nate • (chatter) 01:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per mindboggling obviousness of it all. JuJube (talk) 02:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per TenPoundHammer's Law. This article will be re-created when the time comes. But the time hasn't come yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No assertion of notability. We don't even know that this is going to happen for sure. At this point, it is essentially CRYSTAL material. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The article has Billboard cited as a source. TWO producers confirmations are there, too. It shouldn't be deleted since it's projected for a release THIS year. Mazenation —Preceding comment was added at 02:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it will get more sources over time, but it has some now CloversMallRat (talk) 11:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - If the producers have confirmed it, then it shouldn't be deleted. TheLeftorium (talk) 13.19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - if it isn't deleted can a decision be made as to the proper name for the article and that decision be stuck with. For instance it seems to exist as Britney Spears Sixth Album, Britney Spears's Sixth Album, Britney Spears' Sixth Album, Britney Spears's sixth album, etc. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few days ago I moved it to "Britney Spears's sixth studio album", as that was the naming convention that was decided upon as to what to call Blackout (Britney Spears album)'s article, before the album title was known.

• Keep - Billboard has confirmed it, as well as two producers. It's possible that Jive Records could have also confirmed it. Save-Me-Oprah^(talk) 21:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because the information contained is notable and it appears likely that the album will be released. Everyking (talk) 02:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Britney always changes her album release dates. Nothing official has been confirmed. You need more facts and more substance for a future release. Soapfan06 (talk) 06:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:CRYSTAL + prior deletions. - eo (talk) 10:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - References worthless until more concrete information is available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.202.70.226 (talk) 19:29, 21 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 to do anything else would be process wonkery. Stifle (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non notable song, fails WP:MUSIC - exempt from CSD A7. Booglamay (talk) 20:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not notable, Wikipedia is not for songs made up in school one day. JohnCD (talk) 20:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This is why we need to broaden the speedy criteria.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:MADEUP ~ Ameliorate _{U T} @ 22:19, 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 X2 - no establishment of notability. WilyD 15:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Subject is non-notable. Local school "Emmys" do not constitute significant awards. Appears to be vanity autobio by Samuelgarciafilm (talk · contribs), who has no edits outside of these two articles. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the related article:

Mocha (short film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Deleteboth. He should live and be well and come back when he grows up and makes a real movie that draws some attention.Elan26 (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]
• Delete both Not notable - award mentioned in article is not a real Emmy Award. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 22:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Verifiability is an issue for this article which does not cite any reliable sources. Imdb can be added to by anyone. Stifle (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both as not notable. SunCreator (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Rochelle (Zip-Code Areas), New York (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a redundant article about a subject (zip code areas within a city) that is not obviously of encyclopedic merit. This is the only article that I can find focused on the zip code areas of a specific U.S. city. Only one of the three names given in the article for specific zip code areas is recognized by the US Postal Service as an alternate name for the zip code area (the other neighborhood names look like original research). That one named area is Wykagyl, which is the subject of its own separate article that includes some of the same content as this article. The focus of the article is on census data, but zip codes are not a basic unit for presenting demographic data. The Zip-Code Tabulation Areas used in this article as a basis for data presentation are not primary units for Census data collection but are approximations; if someone wants to know about specific neighborhoods within the city, they could work with data for census tracts or block groups, which are the units that the Census reports. The New Rochelle, New York article presents data for the places described in the article. If there is a perceived need to discuss the zip code areas of New Rochelle, the content of this article should be merged into that one, but I think that deletion of the article would be more sensible. Orlady (talk) 20:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —Orlady (talk) 20:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, ZIP Code Tabulation Areas (ZCTAs) ((are a new statistical entity developed by the United States Census Bureau for tabulating summary statistics from Census 2000. This new entity was developed to overcome the difficulties in precisely defining the land area covered by each ZIP Code. Defining the extent of an area is necessary in order to accurately tabulate census data for that area. ZCTAs are generalized area representations of United States Postal Service (USPS) ZIP Code service areas. Simply put, each one is built by aggregating the Census 2000 blocks, whose addresses use a given ZIP Code, into a ZCTA which gets that ZIP Code assigned as its ZCTA code. They represent the majority USPS five-digit ZIP Code found in a given area)). Census data as collected and organized according to zip-code is the common source of information listed in the 'demographics' section of wikipedia town/city articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.2.128.106 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC) — 210.2.128.106 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. NOTE: additional tag inserted by Orlady reflects the opinion of user, DOES NOT reflect Wiki policy or guidelines (see WP:ESSAYS, WP:EANP, WP:NOTPOLICY ) 210.2.128.106 is the author of the "NOTE" prior to this one, and similar ones elsewhere on this page.[reply]

• Delete The point of the article may be to show, with statistics, the differences between three sections of New Rochelle, New York. This is one of those occasions where WP:STAT would apply, since it seems to be a stream of statistics that don't show much in particular. The "Castle" area has a smaller percentage of white people than "Wykagl", I get that, but zip code areas are among the more arbitrary geographical definitions in existence. Perhaps the author can reorganize this into a table rather than the straight narrative, and make that part of the article about the city. Mandsford (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Demographics" sections of other municipalities typically consist of data from census zip-code assessments. The significant demographic differences found within this particular city arent so easily seen when looking at census measurements for the city as a whole. The breakdown between its three zip-codes helps paint a clearer picture of the substantial socio-economic disparity and ethic/racial differences between city residents, by enabling the reader to contrast information. This page might have been created to avoid making the main article too lengthy(?) Possibly this article should be renamed and a new introduction written to more accurately define its purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.74.196.214 (talk) 21:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC) — 64.74.196.214 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. NOTE: additional tag inserted by Orlady reflects the opinion of user, DOES NOT reflect Wiki policy or guidelines (see WP:ESSAYS, WP:EANP, WP:NOTPOLICY )[reply]

• Delete Non-notable subject. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article is not about zip-codes per se, its about the different sections in a city. To the extent that it isn't original research, its notable. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Now Delete. I made the three areas in the city into seperate articles, making this article obsolete. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Did you find a reliable source documenting the names of the zip code areas for which you made articles? (I don't see a source cited in your new articles.) As far as I could tell, the zip-code area names "Castle" and "South Side" were original research. --Orlady (talk) 23:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I just copy and pasted it from this article. The ref provided looked legit, so I didn't even bother checking it. Now that I googled it without getting any hits I suspect that there might be some OR going on. Mea maxima culpa. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. If there is anything of value, move it to New Rochelle (if it is not already there).Ron B. Thomson (talk) 21:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• As it happens, User:Brewcrewer has created two new articles from sections of this article (see above) and a brand-new registered user has copied the contents of the article into New Rochelle, New York, so now all of this material is replicated in three different places. --Orlady (talk) 23:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I don't like ad hominem arguments, but it might be helpful to know that almost all substantive contributions to the article were made by suspected or confirmed sockpuppets of one particular user, and that I have added the new registered user to the current sockpuppetry case. --Orlady (talk) 23:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Zip-code information is frequently used to guage the racial,ethnic and or economic diversity of a specific area, such as in this case. Minor rewording to the lead of the page might help clarify its overall purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.74.196.214 (talk • contribs) — 64.74.196.214 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. NOTE: additional tag inserted by Orlady reflects the opinion of user, DOES NOT reflect Wiki policy or guidelines (see WP:ESSAYS, WP:EANP, WP:NOTPOLICY )

• Keep information has reference value and is helpful and infomative. Deletion request should be removed so that page can be imrpoved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.237.19.111 (talk) 21:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC) — 123.237.19.111 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. NOTE: additional tag inserted by Orlady reflects the opinion of user, DOES NOT reflect Wiki policy or guidelines (see WP:ESSAYS, WP:EANP, WP:NOTPOLICY )[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor the USPS. Stifle (talk) 22:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  please read the article--if it contained only the sip codes and the boundaries, you'd be right--and I almost made exactly the same mistake when going just by the title.DGG (talk) 01:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I had read it already, although the USPS comment probably isn't relevant. Still violates WP:IINFO. Stifle (talk) 08:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• keep and retitle as Neighborhood of New Rochelle. Its a good combination article. We need it more clearly understood that while eachneighborhood probably should not have an article, a combination one like this is the way to do it. DGG (talk) 01:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is the wrong way to go about writing an article on New Rochelle neighborhoods. Zip code boundaries change all the time (I just got flipped from one into another a couple of years back). Zip codes do have data compiled on them, but are very rarely written about as such (yes, exceptions abound, but these prove the rule). Neighborhood names remain the same over long periods of time and are often written about in reliable sources. Write about those neighborhoods, or a list of those neighborhoods, rather than presenting a prose interface to the U.S. Census Bureau data. --Dhartung | Talk 06:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Discussion at Talk:Wykagyl, New York#Wykagyl, New York and zip code 10804 are not the same indicates that there is no basis for equating Wykagyl with zip code 10804. This is apparently based on the personal knowledge of the contributors to the discussion (who are well-established registered users who have not yet contributed to this AfD). Their comments are consistent with the observation that there are no sources for the names used in the article for the other two zip codes. --Orlady (talk) 23:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Wykagyl/10804/New Rochelle zip-code areas - The argument from prior a user (( This article is currently referring to Wykagyl, New York and the zip code 10804 as being the same, which is not correct. Until this edit on May 11, the article correctly stated: "It shares the 10804 zip code with the greater "North End," yet is independently served by the 'Wykagyl Station' branch of the post office." BlueAzure (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC))) is not accurate, both in its initial claim and in its assertion of the 'correct' facts. There needs to be an understanding where/what Wykagyl is.
  A According to the (FIPS) Class Code Definitions, 'Wykagyl, New York' falls under: Class U[Communities (Populated Places Not Associated with Facilities] (Specifically Class U4 [Identifies a populated place wholly or substantially within the boundaries of an incorporated place with a different name]. The community of Wykagyl is within the boundaries of the incorporated city of New Rochelle. It is located in the northern portion of the city. All of 'Wykagyl' is covered by the 10804 zip-code. The Wykagyl Station Post Office makes a clear reference to its location in its name.
  B Also discussed by an earlier user, ("Mail addressed to people in that area can be addressed to "Wykagyl, NY," even though Wykagyl is just a section of New Rochelle). The USPS site lists 'wykagyl' as an acceptable mailing alternative to 'New Rochelle' when sending mail to 10804. New Rochelle includes three zip codes, served from 2 post offices. Two zip-codes (10801, 10805) are served out of the main post office .The main post office handles the greatest number of households in New Rochelle, serving 10801 and 10805 as well as the 10802 zip-code for P.O. boxes. The other post office within the city is ‘Wykagyl Station Post Office’, serving (10804) 'independently' of the main city branch. This means that mail can be sent to addresses in 10804 either using Wykagyl or New Rochelle as the mailing address. When sent using new rochelle, the mail processes at the main post office before being sent over to Wykagyl Station for final distribution. When sent using Wykagyl, the mail goes directly to Wykagyl Station for distribution. (conversely, out-going mail from 10804/Wykagyl is processed and sent out from the Wykagyl Station Post Office ).
  C The statement ("It shares the 10804 zip code with the greater 'North End') is false. The "North End" of the city is not served by one just one zip-code. The northernmost section of New Rochelle (the northern portion of the "North End") is under the "10583" zip-code of scarsdale town/village (Wilmot, Wilmot Woods). Portions of the "North End" also fall under the "10538" zip-code of neighboring Larchmont village (Larchmont Woods). Additionally, several "North End" areas are are under the "10801" zip-code which covers much of the citys mid-section and downtown area. Correctly understood, not all of the "North End" is part of Wykagyl or a part of the 10804 zipcode. All of 'Wykagyl', however, is covered by that zip-code.
  D Lastly, the census associates the zip-code areas of New Rochelle with the following names: 10801 as “Castle” , 10805 as “South Side”, 10804 "Wykagyl". The first two names are used only by the census, most likely created for organizational/ reference purposes, since neither has an alternative name associated with them other than New Rochelle. Wykagyl is also used by the census, yet is a pre-existing alternative name for the 10804 zip-code within New Rochelle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.240.212.17 (talk)

• Delete I do have some ambivalence about this, I think what pushed me into the "delete" column was the realization that two of the three areas in the article aren't really recognized "areas" as such, they're nothing more than zip codes, established for nothing more than the convenience of the USPS for delivering mail. (I wasn't aware of that fact until I read the various discussions that are taking place around this issue, BTW, so I'd have to say that this discussion has been most edifying, and I'm grateful to all who are participating.) So if this is really an article about zip codes and nothing more, the question is: Should Wikipedia include articles about every zip code in the United State? Because if we keep this article, that's the road we're heading down. And that's where I'm ambivalent, because I'm not sure that that would be such a bad thing. But I tend to feel that adding thousands of zip-code articles would not be especially useful or enlightening, which is why I'm coning down on the "delete" side. HMishkoff (talk) 13:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Snowball delete. There is no evidence presented that these postal ZIP codes are notable. The article is redundant and filled with trivia. Bearian (talk) 18:52, 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 merge into Lenton, Nottingham. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kimbolton Avenue, Nottingham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable - a couple of disputed newspaper allegations in 2006 are not enough. At most it should have a mention in Lenton, Nottingham.  —SMALLJIM  20:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep From what I've seen, there are some partly notable aspects. I've found several related links on Google, some of which seem pretty reliable. The article, while not near perfect, has some sources, Wikilinks, images and such. I'd don't see any reason to delete it. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Lenton, Nottingham. Doesn't look notable enough for seperate article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge not notable enough for a separate article. Only claim of notability is based on disputed statistics that appeared in newspapers in 2006; no significant lasting notability; sourced information can be added to the Lenton, Nottingham article. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 22:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Brewcrewer. Stifle (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:19, 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 Keep (non-admin closure), consensus. - Icewedge (talk) 06:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leningrad Cowboys Go America album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable album, fails WP:MUSIC. ukexpat (talk) 19:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Notable band, and soundtrack to a notable Finnish film by Aki Kaurismaki. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - band is notable, particularly in Finland where they are hugely popular. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 21:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, album by notable group. Corvus cornix_talk 21:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable act usually means a notable album. This was even the soundtrack to a notable film, so it clearly passes WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Smerge to Leningrad Cowboys as there's no content to speak of. Stifle (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:20, 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. John254 01:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Seems little more than random sets of originally-researched definitions. Anything particularly useful should be transwiki-ed there to its wiktionary entry, and this entry deleted. ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amended nomination to include link to the wiktionary entry, which I meant to do originally. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have removed the more blatant original research from the article. The version described by ZimZalaBim can still be found here. Whatever the outcome of this AfD discussion, the removed material should not be replaced unless it can be properly sourced Gwernol 12:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, valid terminology. Stifle (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete the article is a set of dictionary definitions with examples, and lacks encyclopedic content; also it only cites one source, which is a dictionary. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 22:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now the original research has been removed. The discussion here suggests it can be expanded; if not expanded it can be merged into other articles. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 13:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems like more could be written on this topic, even though it hasn't happened yet. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand with a fuller discussion and more in the way of sourcing. But it's already more than Wiktionary. DGG (talk) 01:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete Reads like a dictionary entry, not an encyclopedia article. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The section about supposedly misleading conduct by fund managers seems to be using the article as a coatrack. Other than that, the article is an extended dictionary definition. EALacey (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article doesn't look too bad now. A merge with display window might be a good idea, but that can be handled outside AFD. EALacey (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I imagine that the article and its sourcing could be improved if given time. At this point, its already more than wiktionary, so I don't think DICDEF is relevant. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Although needs more references, it could get some. The little of it I wrote has a reliable published source. Wictionary requires sources also. The original reasearch rule is: Wikipedia:No original research.--Chuck (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as rewritten, would like to see this improved further ala WP:HEY. (jarbarf) (talk) 22:15, 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 - repost of deleted material. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This appears to be a long religious tract. I'm having trouble seeing how this is encyclopedic content and not just a regurgitation of religious doctrine. Rob Banzai (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:OR. Note: was thrice speedily deleted as Blaspheming Against The Holy Spirit. Ros0709 (talk) 19:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I thought it sounded familiar. Rob Banzai (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Original research, essay, non-neutral, you name it. Maybe break out the salt shaker as well. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not encyclopedic, Definitely an essay, recreating deleted material WikiZorro 19:23, 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 Speedy delete under criteria A7. Nick Dowling (talk) 23:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Privatevoyeur.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Another porn site that makes no effort to assert notability. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - notability not established or even asserted. Might even be a candidate for WP:CSD#G11.  Frank  |  talk  20:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete self-promotional advertising ~ Ameliorate _{U T} @ 22:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Verifiability is an issue for this article which does not cite any reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Appears to be a hoax; see related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aves Chimoio. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Agree with the nominator: either a hoax or completely unnotable. Only 10 Ghits[15], none of which pass WP:RS. Fails WP:V and WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 19:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, after running a web search, I found no notable evidence that it exists. Most likely a hoax. WikiZorro 19:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Verifiability is an issue for this article which does not cite any reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Doesn't pass V, let alone N. No sources at all to indicate even the existence of the subject. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Looks like in 2005 at least there were plans for a large football arena in Chimoio[16]. Not sure if anything came of it -- I'll keep looking.--Fabrictramp (talk) 22:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete unsourced WP:DICDEF. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unsourced WP:DICDEF.  Frank  |  talk  20:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Verifiability is an issue for this article which does not cite any reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per WP:DICDEF. Malinaccier (talk) 22:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a recognised art genre with plenty of scope for expansion with encyclopedic material from sources such as these and many others. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete looks like a neologism fit for Wiktionary if it were in common use. (jarbarf) (talk) 22:15, 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.  Sandstein  19:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of world leaders at the funeral of Yitzhak Rabin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

First, it's trivia and a violation of WP:IINFO. (Plus, the respective article already has a good list of the key people in attendance.) Second, it's unreferenced. And third, what's a "world leader"? Some of the entries here - Mongolian Ambassador to Egypt, Fijian Interior Minister, Judd Gregg - hardly seem to fit the bill. Biruitorul (talk) 18:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Funerals of world leaders are routinely attended by world leaders, and Wikipedia is not a directory of such appearances. --Dhartung | Talk 20:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:OR, uncited, and generally tabloidish.  Frank  |  talk  20:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - I understand the logic behind the article, since the funeral brought an uncommonly large number of delegations to Israel (including countries with no previous overt diplomatic relations). But, unfortunately, it doesn't seem to fit here. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, first of all, just about everything on Wikipedia is trivia and there's no policy against trivia. This list isn't a violation of WP:IINFO. Much of this list could be merged into Assassination of Yitzhak Rabin#Reactions and funeral if this list is deemed to be too long. Since editors should endeavor to preserve information, and a merge would be plausible, deletion is not an issue. I'm sure you could find references for most of these people, starting by consulting the references in the Assassination of Yitzhak Rabin#Reactions and funeral section. The phrase "world leaders" in the title can be modified. I suggest the list be kept and a merge discussion started. Were there any political motivations behind this nomination? --Pixelface (talk) 21:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, why would you ask if there's a political motivation? And: actually, see WP:TRIVIA - saying that "just about everything on Wikipedia is trivia" is quite incorrect. Look at this month's FAs - no trivia there. Biruitorul (talk) 21:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I asked because you have several political userboxes on your userpage and this article is related to a politician. I appreciate your answer. And WP:TRIVIA applies to trivia sections in articles, there isn't a policy against trivia. And I stand by my statement that just about everything on Wikipedia is trivia. While this month's featured articles look nice, they are also full of trivia. --Pixelface (talk) 05:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I can appreciate Pix's cynicism about Wikipedia, but there actually is a policy against trivia sections. There's no requirement that articles must be dull, and although trivia should be interesting, not everything that is interesting should be considered trivial. Mandsford (talk) 21:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you link to that policy? --Pixelface (talk) 21:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I can't see any way that this would avoid deletion, so I urge the author ot save it to his/her hard drive. I imagine that the point of this may have been to demonstrate the "importance" that various nations accorded to the existence of the nation of Israel, or at least how they felt in 1995 (author mentioned everything except when the funeral was). This would have some significance, perhaps, regarding which Arab nations sent delegations to Israel, and whether other nations sent their head of government, head of state, foreign minister, dogcatcher, whatever. However, a "guest list" is the wrong way to convey that type of information. This could probably be reduced to a paragraph in an article about Rabin, or about Israel in 1995, or something else. Mandsford (talk) 21:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Trivial and unreferenced. The main article already establshes that there were a lot of notable world-leaders at his funeral. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete unreferenced and it would be terrible if everyone who died was given a page listing attendees, however there is a possibility that in the future someone would like to have the information at hand, such as for a school project or similar ~ Ameliorate _{U T} @ 22:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:IINFO. Stifle (talk) 22:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as trivial, unsourced, unencyclopedic, and apathy-inducing. I mean, half of these people are redlinked, and most of them aren't "world leaders" by any but the loosest definition (US Senators and Egyptian energy ministers don't really count) --UsaSatsui (talk) 10:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete per nom, unsourced. Ostap 02:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This was a very important event, and the list of those present is an interesting indicator of the state of international political relations.--Poetlister (talk) 12:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, define "world leaders". Biruitorul (talk) 16:23, 21 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 If in doubt, do nowt. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 21:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

16 @ War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable recent (and first) single from some less-known artist's debut-album. Damiens.rf 18:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Karina (R&B singer). The singer meets notability guidelines by having a charted single, but the single itself doesn't meet separate guidelines yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per 4.54kg hammer. Metric > imperial. Stifle (talk) 22:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and Merge per Ten Pound Hammer, but also redirect the article 16 @ War to Karina (R&B singer). ≈Alessandro ♫ ^{T • C} 04:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for the fact that the song has charted on both the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs and Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay and peaked at #51 [17] [18], therefore making the single notable. Admc2006 (talk) 23:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• R#, or merge, and keep. This page is too short, but we do have enough source.--Freewayguy ^{T C} 01:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Admc2006 ("the song has charted on both the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs and Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay") and per coverage here. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:19, 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 --JForget 23:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

That team don't exist.. you can see in [19] and [20]. That team is not listed in any level of Mozambique football leagues — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calapez (talk • contribs) 2008/05/16 15:24:58

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Verifiability is an issue for this article which does not cite any reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 22:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The only source provided does not support this article's claims. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per above Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom. -- Alexf⁴² 11:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 18:40, 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. While existence has been shown, notability has not. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

That team don't exist.. you can see in [21] and [22]. That team is not listed in any level of Mozambique football leagues — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calapez (talk • contribs) 2008/05/16 15:24:44

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• It seems like it did exist at some point; it's listed here and here. There's nothing in Google news, but I wouldn't expect to see much there for a team like this. Zagalejo^^^ 18:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's absolutely nothing to be found anywhere for Chimoio Arena, and the refs in Aves Chimoio either don't exist or don't say anything about this team. I dunno... Zagalejo^^^ 18:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Either a hoax or completely unnotable. Either way, delete. Nsk92 (talk) 19:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Verifiability is an issue for this article which does not cite any reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 22:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - team existed as recently as 2004. Not a hoax. Neier (talk) 12:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, how about notability then? Nsk92 (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Non-notable. -- Alexf⁴² 11:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Neier. GiantSnowman 18:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but what about satisfying WP:N? Nsk92 (talk) 20:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete even if the mentioned website was a reliable source for the results, it isn't so for an article about the team and the information only shows existence but nothing that would amount to competing beyond regional or second level leagues. Let me also note that that we do not only discuss the original nomination reason here.Tikiwont (talk) 18:38, 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 Keep but please add sources to the article. Will add the tag as a result. --JForget 23:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In/Humanity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Insufficient notability Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - an influential power violence band (one of the original). They released an album and best-of compilation on Prank Records, a larger independent punk label of the 90s. They also released a slew of EPs and appeared on many classic 90s compilations. Members also went on to form Guyana Punchline. BeastmasterGeneral 17:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. There seems to be some kind of a technical problem with this AfD. Which article is actually being nominated? Surely, not Humanity? The disambiguation page Humanity (disambiguation) does not seem to help as none of the items is a musical band. What is going on? Nsk92 (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hope that clarifies. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. I've also updated the header. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Looks like it passes WP:MUSIC C5 and C6, at the least. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Verifiability is an issue for this article which does not cite any reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 22:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Their Prank Records release was given 4 and a half out of five stars by All Music Guide. There's one instance of high-profile press, and I doubt they've gone without plenty more. Chubbles (talk) 05:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Chubbles. --Bardin (talk) 11:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sporting Clube Ressano Garcia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

That team don't exist.. you can see in [23] and [24]. That team is not listed in any level of Mozambique football leagues — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calapez (talk • contribs) 2008/05/16 15:27:31

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Verifiability is an issue for this article which does not cite any reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 22:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hoax. Manager: José Mourinho? (yeah right). It does not even exist in Moçambola. -- Alexf⁴² 11:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 18:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it's an obvious hoax. The 67 year-old ex-Mozambiquian president listed as one of their players gave it away. --Jimbo^[online] 19:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article has been around since December of 2006 but it never makes any real claim to notability as far as I can see. (He's been "up-and-coming" for a year and a half now?) Google search for the album name "Old Enuff 2 Vote" only gets 24 results. Cosprings had placed a speedy tag on it, but I figured to bring it here instead to get a consensus. ... discospinster _talk 17:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No objections to delete at this time, but keep if article improved and WP:N established. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No sources to show that he passes WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO or WP:N at this time. Nsk92 (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Verifiability is an issue for this article which does not cite any reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 22:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete obviously written by the subject, non-notable. I hate people who write their own articles as bragging advertising. Cosprings (talk) 21:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete notability not established in the article doesn't pass WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO or WP:N as far as I can see. Would prefer that Lukerat88 doesn't linkspam the article but, perhaps he'd point the rest of us to the assertion of notability in the article per the relevant policies. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Hello,

As the artist in question, I would like to let you know that I have just been signed to Geffen Records, with my first major release scheduled for January 2009. In the meantime, if my notability is in question, I will post links on the page to the various interviews, movies, and clips that I am featured prominently in. Thank you. Lukerat88 (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't prove that; what links have you posted?Cosprings (talk) 01:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:48, 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 to me 23:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Braye beach hotel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A non-notable hotel, article appears to be solely promotional. Polly (Parrot) 17:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not enough to show notability per WP:N, plus the article looks like WP:ADVERT. Nsk92 (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Sources are there, but notability doesn't seem to be. Stifle (talk) 22:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:49, 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.  Sandstein  19:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technology in the classroom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod, so lets go to a formal discussion. Wikipedia is not a place to publish essays, which is what this page is. Wikipedia is not Myspace, it cannot publish unsourced original research, and it is not an indiscriminate collection of information. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The subject itself would probably might make a suitable article, but in it's current form, better to bin and start again. Unreferenced/Original research. Paulbrock (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As Paul said the article may be a good idea for a subject but not in its surrent form. Kaloo (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's not a proper article. ... discospinster _talk 18:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - we haven't given it much time, but it is clearly going to be an OR essay, not an encyclopedia article. When it first appeared, it was headed "Technology in the Classroom (CTL1799 Earth Team Project)", raising in my mind the spectre of another Global Economics debacle. I have asked the author whether this is a class project, and if so who is in charge, so that they can be pointed to useful advice and guidelines; but no reply so far. JohnCD (talk) 18:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have tracked down "CTL1799" - it is a course at the University of Toronto. I have looked around its website, and it does not seem that the students are told to use Wikipedia for their project papers; so with luck this is a one-off. JohnCD (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A WP:OR essay. If there is a valid concept for an article somewhere behind this, it should first be developed in a user sandbox. Nsk92 (talk) 19:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete under WP:NOT a notepad. WillOakland (talk) 21:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. Stifle (talk)
• Delete not an article. Ditch this trash. JuJube (talk) 02:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Obviously an OR Essay. Deathawk (talk) 04:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as above Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:14, 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 Keep --JForget 23:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Seems to be promotional material of a local event, without assertion of notability. (speedy delete was declined, and PROD notice removed without comment). ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as presently written, provides no evidence whatsoever of notability, no sourcing, advertising/advocacy tone. S.P.A. author claims this is a bigger thing on the Dutch Wikipedia; is it any better sourced there? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A long-standing event that has taken place every year for over sixty years and is attended by over 30,000 nationals from two countries, that commemorates one of the most famous battles of the Second World War, the Battle of Arnhem (who hasn't seen the film, A Bridge Too Far?). It has some independent sources and a couple of primary ones. Could it be better sourced? Yes. Does it need to be rewritten? Yes. But these are reasons to edit not to delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • clarification - Notability is not inherited; a commemoration of a notable event is not therefore notable itself. Maybe this material (properly sourced) could be incorporated into the Battle of Arnhem article. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice to a proper encyclopedic article being written. Stifle (talk) 22:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Netherlands and to WikiProject Military history. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep rewrite. The current version of the article shows the notability of this march, by virtue of being pivotal in the annual remembrances of Market Garden, as demonstrated by the references. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 23:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep rewrite Remove promotional nature and it still is a notable commemmoration of a notable battle (Market Garden). Arnoutf (talk) 08:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep rewrite See Aecis. Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Thanks for all efforts to keep the article. All items in the article are proven (historic) data, as mentioned in my talk page, under To Malcolmx15. If there is anything wrong in the article, tell me exactly what is, so I can alter it. I am a Wikipedia 'newbee' so help me out here.--Annerobe (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep rewrite See Aecis and Malcolmxl5. Ekki01 (talk) 09:16, 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, disregarding numerical consensus. Yes, the topic has a "notable" feel to it, but that is not the problem. The problem is that it is not clear from either the article or this discussion that a verifiable article can be written about this topic. As WillOakland points out, the article has no sources and that means we can't be sure that the term "i686" actually means what the article says it means. Various Google searches are also unhelpful in finding a reliable source for the meaning of this term, so I'll have to delete it until someone writes an article that has references to reliable sources.  Sandstein  19:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I686 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Basically a list that can include every Intel processor since the Pentium Pro, and every AMD processor since the Athlon. As new processors are released, this list will continue to grow without stopping. Basically every processor today supports i686 instructions. ANDROS¹³³⁷ 17:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I see where you're going with this, and ordinarily I reject Google as a measurement of most anything, but Results 1 - 10 of about 8,510,000 for i686. (0.08 seconds) suggests that we should be able to WP:HEY and improve this one. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, this article is simply way too broad. There is already an Intel P6 article, which is more specific, referring the the family of processors to first use i686 instructions. While i786 is sometimes used for the NetBurst processors (i.e. Pentium 4), it is not commonly recognized, and most of the time it is still treated as i686. The same is true for the Intel Core Microarchitecture. ANDROS¹³³⁷ 17:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep If "every processor today supports" this instruction set, then it's a notable instruction set. Go ahead and edit out the list of processors, but keep (and expand) the intro paragraph---for example, Andros, everything you just said (first used in P6, 786 treated as 686, etc.) is non-obvious, encyclopedic info that belongs in the article. Bm gub (talk) 20:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, why don't we have articles on i386, i486, and i586? i386 instructions are supported by all x86 processors starting with the Intel 80386. ANDROS¹³³⁷ 21:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • An argument of WP:OTHERSTUFF (doesn't) exist, surely? Paulbrock (talk) 23:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, there are articles for each of those things---each one is an appropriate redirect. If i686 really is a synonym for P6, then i686 should redirect there. But it really is a common term, one I've encountered dozens of times (in compiler flags, etc.), and shouldn't be deleted outright. Bm gub (talk) 03:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, it was a slang term for the P6 and trying to associate it with anything else is original research. WillOakland (talk) 21:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Criteria is sketchy at best. Title is poor and doesnt explain much. It claims to be an 'unofficial name' and has no sources. --neonwhite user page talk 23:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a common term, so the article is useful. If it's too broad, make it a disambig page - which it almost is now, anyway. --Chriswaterguy talk 05:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge - this is a notable name for a CPU instruction set/architecture. Note that things like i386, i486, etc. have different instruction sets and programs compiled for an later archs may not run on earlier ones. This article certainly could be improved and merging into Intel P6 might be the way to go, but I think it is an ok stub right now. Wrs1864 (talk) 13:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - very well known term. A bad article doesn't automatically mean it should be deleted. -Halo (talk) 04:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in some form, even if just as a redirect, as this is a very common term, and a plausible link and search target. No need to push the delete button on this one. I'm not going to comment on whether it should be a redirect or a list/article, but AfD is not needed for that discussion. --Itub (talk) 08:49, 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.  Sandstein  06:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seoul Peace Declaration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. Not mentioned in secondary sources. (Although the goals of the declaration are admirable.) Borock (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Agree with nom. No independent secondary sources to show notability per WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 19:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Verifiability is an issue for this article which does not cite any reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 22:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom. Not notable except to Unification Church members. -Exucmember (talk) 07:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not even say why it is interesting or important to us members. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 00:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. Culturalrevival (talk) 02:30, 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 keep.  Sandstein  19:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Contested Prod -

• Rationale for deletion = per WP:NOT Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, there is no special criteria for inclusion in this list other then being a clock, there is no more reason to have a list of clocks there there is to have a List of shoes
• Rational for keep = the inclusion criterion the implied one for all lists that items should be notable, and this is a valid navigational list

AFD by Jeepday (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep the nomination includes a rationale to keep. Since we should not delete in cases of doubt, the AFD falls at the first hurdle. AFD is not a place to generally review articles which have merit, such as this. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep we're not mind readers; no rationale for deletion has been provided. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Needs a lead that defines the scope, which should be clocks notable enough to have articles. With that, definite keep -- meets the criteria of WP:LIST just fine. (And yes it does do things a category couldn't: sort by region.) —Quasirandom (talk) 19:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  My caveat has been met: unambiguous keep. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename List of notable clocks. This list complements Category:Clocks. --Pixelface (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 20:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I hate to contradict the previous commentators, but this article is wildly incomplete, highly subjective and, quite frankly, non-encyclopedic. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Save the clock tower article! Thirty years ago, lightning struck that clock tower article and it hasn't run since! I would consider this to be a list of landmarks that happen to have clocks on them, such as "Big Ben", and I think that's encyclopedic. To some extent, what constitutes a landmark is subjective, so it should be limited to those clocks that have articles about them. To that extent, I'd rather the article stay "wildly" incomplete. Mandsford (talk) 21:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But I need a nuclear reaction to generate the 1.21 jiggawatts of electricity I need! Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Ecoleetage. Stifle (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep define the scope and edit accordinglyDGG (talk) 02:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - article specifies that it is for notable clocks only. It is a useful list. Aleta ^Sing 04:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it is plain trivia. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 04:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as list of notable clock. The inclusion criterion is that the clocks should be notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article. --Itub (talk) 08:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]